^ie,'wm<i

:^1*

4)

W0

,i^.

! THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,

^f/ I: X S^^^y- Princeton, N. J.

^3i-lh

X From the Rev. W. Bv SPRAGUE, D.D. ^^ep^ 1839.

' <^ ^^ No,,.,. ...^.4J

:s-

'•*/^vr-t^;

^*Ttt

^■m.

^^.^k

1!

r

Ui-^

-r.^..- ;

<v>.

^*rt/>

' -iE»^,)II^

^

ff^SfW^ESt^

1

^^ft

jj^^' '.^^^^^Br^S

f

BBSS

r^ ^ -id^^^H^^B^^B

,-f:

■/,

C^Sr

BH^S|

>»^

!■

- /^___ ^

CRITICAL REFLECTIONS

UPON SOME

IMPORTANT MISREPRESENTATIONS

CONTAINED IN

THE UNITARIAN VERSION

OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

BY

RICHARD LAURENCE, LL. D.

RECTOR OF MERSHAM, KENT.

^ 1

OXFORD,

At the University Press for the Author.

Sold by J. Parker, Oxford; and F. C. and J. Rivington, London.

1811.

>

PREFACE.

J/ ROM caufes, too unimportant for public enu-
meration, it happened, that the Author of the
following pages poflefled neither time nor in-
clination minutely to difcufs the merits or de-
merits of that Verfion, which is the objed: of
his prefent ftriftures, at its firft appearance.
Indeed he neglected the examination of it al-
together till very lately, when his attention
was irrefillibly attracted to it by the Remarks
of Mr. Nares, ably expofing, particularly upon
do6lrinal topics, many of its perverfe inaccu-
racies and fallacious deductions . The fcope
of thefe Remarks appeared, it is true, fuffi-
ciently comprehenfive. Still, however, he con-
ceived, that certain mifreprefentations of no
inconfiderable moment required a more full
and diftinft, as well as different, refutation ;
and fuch a one has he now attempted. It will
be feen, that with the theological argument of
the New Verfion he has interfered as little as
poiTible, the fpecific obje6l in his view being

wholly critical. Not indeed that he has com-
bated every erroneous pofition or incorre6l con-
clufion which might have been fairly oppofed;
but he has contented himfelf with feleding a
few of thofe which are mofl: prominent and
leaft venial.

He does not apologize for differing upon
points of criticifm, either from the Heterodox,
or from the Orthodox. A critic is of no party;
but, folely attached to philological truth, cen-
fures without referve obliquities of judgment
wherefoever he dcteds them, whether ufhered
into notice by Trinitarians of rank and cha-
rafter, or turned loofe upon the world by an
anonymous committee of obfcure Unitarians,

TO

JOHN COOKE, B.D,

PRESIDENT OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

WHOSE UNIFORM INTEGRITY OF CONDUCT,

BOTH IN PUBLIC AND IN PRIVATE LIFE,

RECEIVES ADDITIONAL LUSTRE

FROM THE SUAVITY OF HIS MANNERS,

AND

FROM THE BENEVOLENCE OF HIS DISPOSITION,

WHOM IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW,

AND NOT TO ESTEEM,

TO ESTEEM, AND NOT TO VENERATE,

THIS CRITICAL PRODUCTION,

AS NOT PERHAPS AN UNAPPROPRIATE,

ALTHOUGH AN INSIGNIFICANT

TESTIMONY OF RESPECT

TOWARDS THE GOVERNOR OF THAT COLLEGE,

IN WHICH THE AUTHOR WAS EDUCATED,

IS

FAITHFULLY AND AFFECTIONATELY

INSCRIBED.

%^

CONTENTS.

CHAP. I.
Introductory Remarks, p, 1.

CHAP. II.
Authenticity of the tivo first Chapters of St. Mat-
■ thew, p. 14.

♦ CHAP. III.

Authenticity of the two first Chapters of St.
Luke, p. 51,

CHAP. IV.
Intermediate State between Death arid the Resur-
rection, Authenticity of Luke xxiii. 43. p. 74.

CHAP. V.

Perplexing Anomalies in the Theory of Articles,

p. 105.

CHAP. VI.
Existence of an Evil Being, Translation of the
words loiTotv and AixQoXo^, p. 120.

CHAP. VII.
Translation of the word Ay^iKog, Heb. i. Disputed
Books. Griesbach, Conclusion, p. 147-

CHAP. I.

Introdudory Remarhs.

Wi

HEN a work appears under the fingular
title of ^* The New Teftament in an improved
'' Verfion, upon the bafis of Archbiihop New-
*^ come's new Tranflation, with a corrected
*' Text, and Notes Critical and Explanatory,
** publiilied by a Society for promoting Chrif-
" tian Knowledge and the practice of Virtue,
'* by the diftribution of Books ;" it feems natu-
ral to enquire into the religious perfuaiion of
the authors. This indeed is not explicitly avow-
ed either in the Title Page or the Introduction :
but the tranflation itfelf in every part, and the
uniform tenor of the notes, fufficiently difplav
it. The improved Verlion is nothing more than
a new verfion fo improved as to be rendered
conformable with the tenets of Umtmiamjm,
In proof of this affertion, it is unnecelTary to
quote more than the following paflage, from
the comment on i John i. l. *' It is to the un-

B

** wearied and fuccefsful labours of this pious
" and learned perfon, (the venerable Theophilus
'^ Lindlay,) whofe life and dodlrine have ex-
** hibited the moft perfed model in modern
'^ times of the purity and fimplicity of apofto-
*^ lical Chrillianity, in conjunftion with thofe
** of his able coadjutors, Jebb, Prieftley, Wake-
*' field, and others, that the Chriftian world is
*^ indebted for that clear and difcriminating
*^ light, which has of late years been difFufed
*' over the obfcurities of the facred Scriptures,
*' and which promifes, at no very diftant period,
** to purify the Chrijlian religion from tJiofa
*' numerous and enormous corruptions, which
*' have fo long disfigured its doftrines, and im-
'' peded its progrefs." Hence the nature of
that elucidation, which is diffufed over the ob-
fcurities of Scripture in this verfion, may be
difiin6l]y perceived*

Nor will the Unitarians, I prefume, difown
the production ; and if in their juftification they
iimply alledge the propriety of their pofleffing a
tranflation of the New Tefiament, more confo-
nant, in their own judgment, with the fenfe of
Scripture than that of the Efiablifliment, they
certainly advance a pofition whicli few will be
difpofed to controvert. But is it quite confiflent

with that open and manly condud, upon which
they peculiarly pride themfelves, to fink their
charad:eriftical denomination, and (imply to
defcribe themfelves as *' a Society for the pro-
•* motion of Chriftian knowledge and the
*^ practice of virtue by the diftribution of
" books ;" who, in order '^ to fupply the
*' Englifli reader with a more correal text of
*' the New Teftament than has yet appeared^"
had fixed its choice and founded its improve-
ments " upon the excellent tranjlation of the
*^ late moft reverend Dr. William Newcome,
*' Archbilhop of Armagh, and Primate of all
*' Ireland, a worthy fucceffor of the venerable
•' and learned Archbifliop Uflier^;" to enter
the combat in difguife, and advance to the
attack in an archiepifcopal coat of mail ? And
is it true to the extent apparently profefled
both in the Title Page and Introduction, that
Archbifliop Newcomers verfion really forms
the groundwork of this ? The tranilators in-
deed fay, that they have aiTumed it as a princi-
ple not to deviate from the Archbifliop*s ver-
fion '' but w^here it appeared to be necefl^ary
"-' to the correction of error or inaccuracy

' Introdu6lion, p. 5. ^ Ibid. p. 4,
B 2

'* in the text, the language, the confl:ru6lion^,
'' or the fenfe'." But inftances of fuch an
exception unfortunately fo often occur, that
there is fcarcely a fmgle page without one or
more, and not many without numerous de-
viations from it. Nor are thefe deviations
limply confined to mere verbal errors or in-
accuracies, but extended to the moft import-
ant dodrines, fo as uniformly to diveft the
Archbifliop's tranllation of every expreflion
hoftile to the Unitarian Creed ; deviations,
which could not have incidentally taken place,
but mull have been originally projected. For we
are exprefsly told, that the defign of the Tranfla-
tors, as well as of the Society, was, to fupply
the Englilh reader with a more correft text of
the New Teftament than has yet appeared : as
^' alfo, by diverting the facred volume of the
*' technical phrq/es of a fyjiematic theology,
*' which has no foundation in the Scriptures
** themfelves, to render the New Teftament
*' more generally intelhgible, or at leaft to pre-
*' elude many fources of error ; and, by the
'' affiftance of the notes, to enable the jiidl-
*' cious and attentive reader to underftand

e Introduction, p. 4.

** Scripture phrafeology, and to form a juft
*^ idea of true and uncorrupted Chriftiamty^y
What Unitarians mean, when they allude to a
Jyjiematic theology, tvhich has no foundation
in the Scriptures) and alfo to true and un-
corrupted Chrijliamty, no man can for a mo-
ment doubt, who has but flightly glanced
his eye upon any of their avowed publica-
tions. Inllead therefore of being that which
at firfl; view it may appear to the general
reader, a Verfion undertaken from no party
motives, and conduced upon no party princi-
ples, the very reverfe feems to be the fad:.

The text, from which this tranflation is
profeffedly made, is the amended one of Grief-
bach 5 a text which is too well known, and
too highly refpected, to require more than a
limple notice of its excellency, and the fu-
perior correftnefs of which is univerfally ac-
knowledged. But why in an Englifli tranflation
fo long a hiftory is given of the received Greek
text, and its critical improvements, of Greek
manufcripts, and of the different editions of
the Greek Teftament, it feems difficult to con -
jedure. Could it poflibly be to take the chance

^ Introdu(9:ion, p. 5, 5.
b3

of impreffing an idea, that the eftablifhed
tranilation, which confeffedly follows the re-
ceived text, is too corrupt to be ufed as a rule
of faith ? This however it would be more eafy
to infinuate than to prove.

Among the various modes which have been
adopted for the improvement of the received
text, attempts, it is obierved, have been made to
corredl it by critical covjeBure, Upon this fub-
ject the following remarks occur ; '^ This is a
*' remedy which ought never to be applied
" but with the utmoft caution, efpecially as
" we are furnilhed with fo many helps for cor-
" renting the text from manufcripts, verfions,
*^ and ecclefiaftical writers. This caution is
" doubly neceffary when the propofed emen-
^' dation afFecfts a text which is of great im-
*' portance in theological controverjy, as the
*' judgment of the critic ivill naturally be
*' biajfed in favour of his oivn opinions. It
*' ought perhaps to be laid down as a general
'' rule, that the received text is in no cafe to
'' be altered by critical or at leaft by theolo-
*' gical conjedure, how ingenious and plaufi-
** ble foever." So far the reafoning is corred:^
and perfedly conformable with the eftablilhed
maxims of the moil eminent critics : but what

follows ? '' Neverthelefs (it is added) there is
" no reafon why critical conjecture Ihould be
*^ entirely excluded from the New Teftament,
*^ any more than from the works of any other
*' ancient Author ; and fome very plaufible
*^ conjectures of no inconfiderable importance
*^ have been fuggeiled by men of great learn-
'* ingand fagacity, which, to fay the leall, merit
" very attentive confideration. See particularly
'^ John i. 1. vi. 4. and Romans ix. 5.^'' and a
reference is made to Marfli's Michaelis, vol. ii.
c. 10. Here is a manifeft qualification of the
preceding remark. Whatfoever ambiguity then
may be fuppofed to exift in the idea of a
general rule, which is univerfal in its applica-
tion, it is certain that the Authors of the New
Verfion only mean, by fo expreffing themfelves,
a rule which is in mojl cafes to be obferved,
but which may in fome be violated ; and, by
way of diftinclly pointing out the nature of
their exception, they refer to John i. 1. vi. 4.
and Romans ix. 5. The fecond reference in-
deed is not very important ; but the firfl and
third relate to theological conjectures, inimical
to the doCtrine of Chrift's Divinity. The firll

c Introdu6lion, p. i8, 19.
B 4

8

confifts in the fubftitution of Qea for 0eor in the
claufe yccLj 0£o^ yiv o Aoyof, and the fecond in read-
ing ccv for 6 cov in the paiTage o oov sTrt Trctncov
Gsof, fo as by this tranfpofition to render its
fenfe, ^' of whom was God, who is over
^^ all ;" neceflarily precluding the interpretation
ufually affixed to thefe words. What then is
their diftinftion ? The general rule, which i?i no
cafe admits theological conjecture, how inge-
nious and plaufible foever it be, ought not, it
leems, to ftand in the way of any unauthorized
emendations of the facred text favourable to
the Unitarian hypothefis : but do they mean
to extend the fame indulgent exception to
Trinitarian criticifms ? Or do they conceive,
that it is only the judgment of the Trinitarian
critic which is likely to be biafled by indi-
vidual opinion ?

But, in corroboration of what they advance,
they refer the reader toMarfli's Michaelis, vol. ii.
c. X. In this chapter, which is entitled '' Con-
*' jeclural Emendations of the Greek Tefta-
'' ment," and upon which their whole reafon-
ing, one might fuppofe, was founded, it is lin-
gular that Michaelis reprobates, in the llrong-
eft terms, all theological conjecture whatfoever,
and that for this obvious reafpn ; becaufe " a

9

*' Theologian, whofe bufinefs it is to form his
" whole fyftem of faith and manners from the
" Bible, cannot with propriety alTume pre-
'' vioufiy any fyftem of theology, by which
^^ he may regulate the facred text ; but mull
'^ adopt that text which is confirmed by
^* original documents, and thence deduce his
^^ theological fyftem^" Nor is this all. In dire6l
oppofition to the fentiments of thofe who
quote him, and in the beginning of that very
chapter to which they refer, he thus unequivo-
cally exprefles himfelf : '' It muft be evident to
'^ every man, that the New Teftament would
" be a very uncertain rule of life and manners,
^' and indeed w^holly unfit to be used as a
" STANDARD OF Religion, if it wcrc allowable,
" as is the praHice of fever al Socmians, to
*' apply critical conjecture in order to ejlablifk
*^ the tenets of our own party , For inftance ; if,
*' in order to free ourfelves from a fuperfti-
'^ tious doftrine, on the fuppofition that the
^* divinity of Chrift is ungrounded, we were at
" liberty to change, without any authority,
*' 0?of viv Aoyof, John i. 1 . into 0f^ viv o Aoyof,
"^ and uy etti ttclvtoov Qso^, Rom. ix. 5. into cov, &

^ Michaelis^ vol, ii. p. 413,

10

** STTi TravTuv Seof, the Bible would become fo
*^ very uncertain, that every man might believe
*' or difbelieve, as beft fuited his own princi-
" plesg."

Could thefe writers have poffibly read the
preceding palTage when they made their ap-
peal to the authority of Michaelis ? If they
had, they muft furely have perceived that
Michaelis is directly againft them ; and that
the very conjedural emendations, originally
propofed by the Socinian theorijis Crell and
Schlichting, which they particularly notice
as fuggefted by me7i of gi^eat learning and fa-
gacity, and as meriting, to fay the leqfl, very at-
tentive conjideration, he direcftly cenfures in the
moft pointed terms, and exprefsly brings forward
to illuftrate the pofition, that theological con-
je6lure is never admiffible. If, confcious of op-
pofing an eftabliflied maxim, which ought in
no inltance to be violated, they wifhed to
flielter themfelves from the ftorm of critical
reproof, the gabardine of Michaelis was moft
unfortunately felecled indeed as a place of
refuge.

To the paflage which I have juft quoted^

K Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 387.

11

from the firft fe(9:ion of the chapter referred
to, I will add one or two more from the lall
fecftion of the fame chapter, in order to place
the opinion of Michaelis in a ftill clearer point
of view. '^ The only plaufible argument
" which an advocate for theological conjedlure
" might ufe, not fo much indeed to convince
*' himfelf of the jujlice of his caiife, as to per^
" plex his opponents, is the following ; namely,
*' that the New Teftament has been fo cor-
'' rupted by the ruUng party, which calls itfelf
" Orthodox, that the genuine dodrine of
" Chrift and his Apoftles is no longer to be
*' found in it. But there is not the leaft room
^' for a fufpicion of this kind, as we have fo
" great a number of manufcripts, verfions,
" and ecclefiaftical writings, in which the
^' New Teftament is quoted, of every age and
*^ every country^." And in proof of his afler-
tion, among other things, he remarks, that "the
*' paflages ivhich afforded the mofl perplexity
*' to the members of the ruling Church are
*' JUll extant in manufcripts, verfions, and
*' editions of the New Teftament ; whereas
" the fpurious paflage, i John v. 7. though

^ Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 418.

12

'' the Orthodox feem to think it of the utmoft
" importance, has never had the good fortune
*' to find admittance into any Greek manu-
*' fcript, or ancient verfion." If the compilers
of this Introduction, who not only in the in-
ftance before me, but in almoft every page,
refer to the writings of Michaelis, will not ad-
mit the validity of the argument in the pre-
ceding extrafts, they may perhaps feel the force
of the following powerful appeal to Unitarian
confiftency : '' As critical conjeftures/' obferves
the fame author, ''have been principally made
*' by thofe, who, in the language of the Church,
'' are termed Heretics, I will invent one or
" two examples of the fame kind in the name
*' of the Orthodox, and alk thofe of the oppofite
'^ party, whether they would admit them as
" lawful conjectures. For inftance, fuppofe I
^* fhould alter on o UctTyip jjl^ {jLSiCcov p^ s^i, John

" Xiv. 18. to OTl TTOLTVi^ fJLi^ 6^1, OV OTl UctTyifi fJLH

*' 'Quv fjLBv eq-iv, ifi order to be freed from a text
*' that implies an inequality between the Fa-
'* ther and the Son ; or if I lliould read 1 John
"v. 20. in the following manner, ^os' o vlos-
*' s^iv aXn^Lvog Gsof, in order to Ihew more
'' diftindly the divinity of Chrift; I think the
" Heterodox would exclaim. He is either ex-

1

Q

'' tremely ignorant, or, hy having recourfe to
*' fiich miferable artifices, acknowledges the
*' hadnefs of his caiife. But the Heterodox, as
" well as the Orthodox, mull appear before
'' the impartial tribunal of criticifm, where
*^ there is no refped; to perfons, and where it
" is not allowed for one party to take greater
" liberties than the other. ^" As it is impoffible
to expofe their reafoning more ftrcngly than
the Critic himfelf has done, to w^hom they ap-
peal for fupport, and that even in the very
chapter which they quote, I Ihall add nothing
more upon the fubjeft, but leave them to en-
joy, as they can, the teftimony of Michaelis.

» Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 415.

14

CHAP. II.

Authenticity of the tivofirjl Chapters of
St. Matthew.

In the remarks which I propofe to make
upon this New Verfion, it is not my intention
to raife the Ihield of theological warfare againfl:
thofe ^^ critics and commentators of the higheft
" reputation"as they are termed r, thatis,againll
the redoubted champions of Unitarianifm, from
whofe works the Authors profefs to have prin-
cipally collected their notes for the illuftration
of difEcult and doubtful paflages ; but to con-
fine my obfervations as much as poffible to
critical queftions ; and, as they do not pre-
" fume to hold it up as a faultlefs tranllation,
*' but merely as an improved verfion, ffiU, no
*^ doubt, fufceptible of far greater improvement,
" which they will rejoice to fee undertaken

^ Introdu6tiorij p. 4.

15

** and accompliflied by abler hands ^;" I fliall
not drag into view every little error and inac-
curacy v^hich the feverity of criticifm may
difcover, but confider thofe only which are
mofl: ofFenfive and moft prominent.

" If this Verfion/' they remark, *' polTeires
" any merit, it is that of being tranflated from
*' the moft correct text of the original which has
" hitherto been publifhed^." Yet, notwithftand-
ing this and other limilar affertions, '' the in-
'^ quifitive, liberal, and judicious reader," whofe
approbation they feem affured of concihating,
fcarcely opens the Gofpel of St. Matthew be-
fore he finds three pages together printed in
italics, an intimation, he is told, that the
paflages themfelves are all of doubtful avi-
thority; and, when he gets to St. Luke*s, al-
moft feven more of the fame defcription. The
reafons affigned for the propriety of this re-
jection may poffibly fatisfy the inquifitive,
liberal, and judicious of their own communion,
whofe minds may be prepared by a previous
intimacy with the writings of Prieftley and
his coadjutors, but will never, I am perfuaded,

^ Introduction, p. 30. ^ Ibid. p. 8.

16

convince the inquifitive, liberal, and judicious,
if fuch can be admitted to exift, of any other
communion.

Being repeatedly informed that this Verfion
is adapted to the '' admirable" text of Grief-
bach, as given in the laft edition of his
Greek Teftament, " an edition of unrivalled
** excellence and importance, the publication
'" of w^hich will conftitute a memorable era in
*' the hifiory of Scripture criticifm^/' we na-
turally turn to Griefbach for the authority
of this bold ftep, but in vain ; for there the
doubtful paflages (as they are denominated)
appear in the genuine text without the flight-
eft hint of their fuppofed illegitimacy. Indeed
one of his invariable rules in the regulation of
his correftions very properly was, '^ nil mutetur
'^ e co77Je6iiira, nil line teftium, nempe codicum
*' verfionum, Patrum, aucloritate^." Perhaps
then it may be faid, that the tranflators them-
felves, who certainly feem to fpeak of ancient
manufcripts, and other documents of the kind,
with much familiarity, may have had the good
fortune to difcover what efcaped the fearch of
the indefatigable Griefl^ach. But here again

^ Introduction^ p. 23. ^Prolegomena, p. 83.

17

we are foiled ; for a note informs us, that
thefe paffages are certainly to be found '' in
'* all the manufcripts and verlions, which are
*^ now extant^." Upon what pollible principle
then can it be, that they are thus pilloried,
and expofed in an Englifli tranflation to popu-
lar contempt and fury ? When we recoiled:
that they contain an account of the miraculous
conception of our Saviour, and that Prieliley,
with others of the *' clear and difcriminating*'
clafs of writers, '' who of late years have
" difFufed fo much light over the obfcurities of
*' the facred Scriptures/' have thought proper
to rejeft them, we cannot be long at a lofs to
divine the principle and the motive : but as a
decifion is not palled againft their authenticity
without fome fliow of argument in the notes,
the beft, it is to be prefumed, which Unitarian
reading can fupply, and as the queffion itfelf
is one of conliderable importance, I fliall be
the more particular in my remarks upon this
fubjedl.

The portion of St. Matthew's Gofpel which
is thus ftigmatized, conlifts of the whole of the
two firft Chapters, with the (ingle exception of
the Genealogy at the commencement.

f New Verlion, p. a.

c

18

The critical authority adduced for the re-
tention of the Genealogy, and the rejeftion of
the remainder of thefe two chapters, is ftated
in the following terms : '* Epiphanius fays,
*^ that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who ufed
*' the Gofpel of the Ebionites, which was pro-
*' bably the original Gofpel of Matthew, writ-
" ten in the Hebrew language for the ufe of
'^ the Jewifli believers, argued from the Ge-
*' nealogy at the beginning of the Gofpel, that
** Chrift was the fon of Jofeph and Mary ; but
^^ that the Ebionites had taken away even the
** Genealogy, beginning their Gofpel with thefe
'' words ; ' And it came to pafs in the days of
*' Herod the king &c.' See Epiph. Heeref. 30.
** N. 13. ' Jones on the Canon, vol, i. part ii.
*' chap. 25. It is probable therefore that the
*^ firft lixteen verfes of this chapter are ge-
*^ nuine ; and that they wxre found at leaft in

*^ the copies of Cerinthus and Carpocrates

" The remainder of this chapter, and the
*^ whole of the fecond, are printed in Italics,
'' as an intimation that they are of doubtful
'' authority. They are indeed to be found in
*' all the manufcripts and verfions which are
'' extant ; but from the teftimony of Epipha-
'' nius and Jerome we are allured, that they

19

** were wanting in the copies ufed by the Na-
*' zarenes and Ebionites, that is, by the ancient
*' Hebrew Chriftians, for whofe inftrucftion
*' probably this Gofpel was originally written,
*' and to whom the account of the miraculous
*' conception of Jefus Chrift could not have
*' been unacceptable, if it had been found in
*^ the genuine narratives."

Before I proceed to the examination of the
authorities cited, it will be proper to notice an
ambiguous aflertion occurring in the firfl para-
graph, viz. that the Gofpel of the Ehionites was
*' the original Gofpel of Matthew, written in
*' the Hebrew language for the ufe of the
'^ Jewifh believers." If this affertion be in-
tended to convey the limple perfuafion of the
tranflators themfelves, it will reft on no folid
bails, and confequently require no particular
refutation : but if they apply it to Epiphanius,
an application which feems to arife from the
natural connexion of the whole, it may be ne-
ceflary to remark, that they certainly attribute
to the Father an opinion the very reverfe of
that which he maintained. The words of Epi*

s New Verfion, p. i, a.
c 2

20

phanius are thefe : Ei' tco yav Trct^ uvtoi^ EvccyyeXicf
ycctTcL MarB-ctiov ovofJLoZpfJLSVu, ax ^^^ ^^ ttX^b^citu,
aXXoL vsvo^evfJLSvcp }ccci viKPCOTvi^icta-i^svc*), 'ESpcttKov Si
TUTo xrf-A^o-;, BiJL(ps^€TCLt &c. ^ This is thus tranf-
lated by Jones, to whom alfo reference is
made, moft probably for the convenience of
the mere Englifli reader. '^ In that Gofpel
*' which they (i. e. the Ebionites) have called
*' the Gofpel according to St. Matthew, which
•^ is not entire and perfe^, but corrupted and
" curtailed, and which they call the Hebrew
*' Gofpely it is written &c." Now is it not
hence apparent, that Epiphanius, inftead of
conlidering it as *^ the original Gofpel of Mat-
'' thew, written in the Hebrew language for
*^ the ufe of the Jewifh believers," pointedly
ftigmatized it as an imperfect, fpurious, {vbvq^ev-
ILcsva, illegitimatized,) and mutilated copy? But
the tranflators perhaps, as I before obferved,
might have intended to take the refponfibility
of the alTertion folely upon themfelves; in
w^hich cafe I will only remind them, that they
adopt the very opinion of the celebrated To*
land, which ** the learned" Jeremiah Jones, as

^ Hseref. 30. §. 13.

21

they juftly defcribe a favourite author, (Intro-
duction, p. 7-) formerly reprobated in the
ftrongeil terms K

' Toland, it feems, not only maintained that the Gofpel of
the Ebionites was the original Gofpel of St. Matthew, and
that both the Ebionites and Nazarenes were the true an-
cient Hebrew Chriftians; but that the forged Jl6is of the
ylpq/iles, which the Ebionites alfo ufed, were a portion of
genuine Scripture. After giving Epiphanius's account of
the latter produftion, Jeremiah Jones adds the following
fevere reflections : " Part of this fragment is produced by
*'' Mr. Toland, in his Original Plan or Scheme of ChriJ'-
*^ tianihj according to the Ebionites, both in Greek and
^^ Englifli ; nor is it ftrange that a perfon of Mr. Toland's
'^ profeflion ihould grace his Scheme with a paflage fo
" much to his purpofe, I mean, of aholifliing the doSlrines
«« of Chriftianity, which are agreed upon by all Chriftians,
^' and introducing his moft ridiculous and impious Scheme
** of Nazarene, or Jewijli, or Ehionite, or Mahometan, or
*' (which is the undoubted truth) of no Chriftianitij at all.
^^ Did Mr. Toland and his friends, in thefe their vile at-
'^ tacks upon fo excellent and divine a conftitution, not
'' qnibble, and juggle, and prevaricate, as they upon all oc-
" cafions do, in their citations out of the old records of
" Chriftianity, (a crhne which they are ever forward to
'^ charge u^n others, who are nmch more clear of it,)
^' I fliould excufe myfelf and the reader from the trouble
'^ of any remarks upon them, leaving them to their flavifh
^^ infidelity : but when I obferve a perfon ranfacking and
" muftering together all the filhj trumpery of the ancient
*^ heretics, grofsly mifreprefenting the books he cites, only
- C 3

22

If I underftand the ground of their argu-
ment in this cafe corredly, it is precifely this.

" with defign to gratify a bigoted humour againft the
*^ Chriftian religion, I am obliged, by my regards to the
^'^ profeffion I make of the name of Jefus, to lay open
" fuch vile impofture. Of this I have given feveral in-
*^ fiances already from Mr. Toland's books. The paflage
*^ I am now upon out of Epiphanius furnifhes me with
*^ another. He would perfuade us the Ebionites or Na-
" zarenes (a moji ridiculous Jort of heretics, who fear cely
^' deferved the name of Chriftians, as Ifhallfhew hereafter)
*^ were the only true and genuine Chrijiians, confequently
^^ their looks mufi le the truefi and moJi genuine accounts
^^ of the Chriftian affairs ; and fo, for inftance, muft thefe
*^ AAs, which we are now difcuffing ; becaufe it fo much
^^ vilifies St. Paul, and expofes his doctrine. But, as Dr.
" Mangey has juftly remarked, this is mo/i infupportalle
^^ impudence in him, to cite as genuine a wretched forgery
*' of the Ebionites. One can fcarce tell whether his inten-
" tion of vilifying St. Paul, or the method he ufeth to do
^^ it, be the more deteftable ; this forry unbelieving Critic
*^ governs his fkill by his wicked principles, and has no
" other way to judge of fpurious and genuine books, than
^^ by their oppofition to Chriftianity.'* Jones on the Ca-
nonical Authority of the New Teftament, Part II. Chap.
17. It may indeed be obferved, that the language of this
paflage is difgraced by an immoderate afperity, and that
the opinion contained in it is unfupported by authority ;
to both of which remarks I fully accede; only fubjoining
with regard to the latter point, that although the opinion
be unfupported here, it is very fufficiently proved in other
parts of the work, and that, if it relied folely upon the

23

We are aflured by Epiphanlus and Jerome,
that the two firft chapters of St. Matthew's
Gofpel were wanting in a Gofpel fuppofed to
be that of St. Matthew, ufed by the Nazarenes
and Ebionites, that is, by thofe who are con-
jectured to have been the ancient Hebrew
Chriftians, and for whofe inftrudion St. Mat-
thew's Gofpel is alfo conjectured to have been
written ; the whole two chapters therefore
are prima facie to be rejected : but Epiphanius
aflerts, that Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who
ufed the fame Gofpel, admitted the Genealogy
at the commencement, which the Ebionites
had taken away; therefore the Genealogy alone
is to be retained, and the remainder of the two
chapters to be rejedied.

I fliall not undertake to refute the illogical
reafoning manifefted in the conducl of this ar-
gument, becaufe it is in itfelf fufiiciently ob-
vious, and has already been expofed^; nor
enter into an unneceflary difcuffion refpefting
the proper principle upon which the Genea-

credit of the aflertor, ftill, as being the opinion of the
learned Jeremiah Jones, it would be entitled to at leaft
as much refpe6t as the oppofite opinion of the authors of
the New Verfion.

^ Nares's Remarks on this Verfion, p. 5, 5.

C 4

24

logy is to be admitted, fatisfied that it is on
both fides declared to be genuine ; but confine
myfelf to the critical fl:atements upon which
the rejedion of the remainder of thefe chap-
ters is grounded.

We are aflured, the authors of this work
obferve, both by Epiphanius and Jerome, that
the two firfl: chapters were wanting in the
Hebrew Gofpel ufed by the Nazarenes and
Ebionites. When I found them in the In-
troduction, p. 14. defcribing the celebrated
Ephrem, who lived in th^ fourth century, as a
writer of fome note in the Jixtli, I began to
fufpeft that they were very little converfant
with the works of the Fathers ^ ; and this fuf-

^ Are thpy aware that the works of the ancient heretics
no where exifl; but as they are quoted in thofe of the Fa-
thers ? They certainly feem to put this point a Httle du-
bioufly, v/hen, in defcribing the means of correfting the
received text^ they fay, " The works of thofe writers who
" are called heretics, fuch as Valentinian, Marcion, and
" others, are as ufeful in afcertaining the value of a read-
" ing as thofe of the Fathers, wdio are entitled Orthodox ;
^* for the heretics were often more learned and acute, and
<^ equally honeft.'* Introd. p. i8. If the ponderous vo-
lumes of the Fathers are deemed to be in themfelves but
of little intrinfic value, they furely deferve to be invefli-
gated more accurately than they feem to have been by

25

picion feems confirmed in the prefent inftance,
by their attributing to Jerome an allertion
which he never made. Every thing advanced
by Jerome and others, upon the fubjed: of the
Gofpel in queftion, has been carefully collefted
by Grabe, in his Spicilegium Patrum, vol. i. p..
15 — 31 ; by Fabricius, in his Codex Apocry-
phus N.T. vol.i.p. 346 — 34g. and 355 — 370;
and alfo by Jones, in the chapter of his work
to which they themfelves refer: and certainly
in neither of thefe colledions does any thing
fimilar to what they fay of Jerome appear.
That therefore, which has efcaped the diligent
inveffigation of Fabricius and Jeremiah Jones,
has fcarcely, I prefume, been difcovered by
them. Indeed a direct negative may here be
aflumed with the greater confidence, becaufe,
as I fhall fubfequently iliew, Jerome himfelf
aflerted the very reverfe of their pofition.

The alfurance therefore, that thefe chapters
were rejeded by the Nazarenes and Ebionites,
folely retts upon the authority of Epiphanius.
The words alluded to are thefe : Ovroi ^s ccAAct

thefe writers, were it only for the difcovery of that pearl
above all price, according to their eftimation, the genuine
Chriftianity of the reputed heretics of antiquity.

26

rivet ^ictVQvvtcit* 'Cicifctiio'^ctne? ya^ rovg Traod ra Mctr^
B-aio) yevsaAoy lets', a^xdncti i^v ccpx^iv Troieio'S'cti, on?
^PQSiTTOV, Xeyomg* on sysvSTo (pvia-iv, sv Tctig yjjLtBpcti^ *H§<w-
eJk (iatriXicog rvig l^^ctictg &c. which are thus ren-
dered by Jones; '' But they (viz. the Ebionites)
•^ have quite other fentiments ; for they have
'* taken av^^ay the Genealogy from Matthew,
'^ and accordingly begin their Gofpel with
'^ thefe words. It came to pafs in the days of
^' Herod king ofJudea, &?c."

This prolix writer is certainly not remark-
able either for his learning or acutenefs; quali-
fications, indeed, with which, in the judgment
of Unitarians, the Fathers in general were very
fparingly endowed. He digreffes moll immo-
derately, and paraphrafes without mercy. If
his honeily be unimpeachable, his accuracy, at
leaft, is more than fufpeded"^. Waving how-

, «i Mofheim, in his Eccleiiaftlcal Hiftory, holds him in
the moft fovereign contempt. He fays, " Epiphanius, Bi-
" fliop of Salamis in the ifle of Cyprus, wrote a book
^^ againfl; all the heretics that had fprung up in the
" Church until his time. This work has little or no re-
" putation, as it is full of inaccuracies and errors, and
" difcovers almoft in every page the levity and ignorance
"of its author.'* Vol. i. p. 359. The original Latin is
thus exprelied, " Epiphanius Salaminae in Cypro Epi-
" fcopus fedas Chriftianorum judo perfecutus eft volu-

27

ever every Imputation of the latter kind> lei
us put the fuppofition, that his aflertions are
all grounded upon the moft corre6l knowledge
and the minutefl: inveftigation ; and what will
follow ? Only that, with the fame breath with
which he tells us that the Golpel of the
Ebionites contained not the two firfl; chapters
of St. Matthew, he alfo informs us, that it was
becaufe they fcrupled not to curtail and muti*
late the genuine produdlion of that Apoftle.
The confequence is obvious. But perhaps a
diftinftion may be here adopted ; and the firft
aflertion be termed a matter of fad, the laft

*' mine, at varils maculis et erroribus propter au(9:oris le-
" vitatem et ignorantiam inujio.'' Hence it appears, that
Moflieim confidered the work as ablblutely branded with
ignominy. One circumftance indeed alone feems to
throw an air of fufpicion over this whole account of the
Ebionites ; for Epiphanius not only derives the name of
the fe(Sl from a perfon denominated Elion, whofe very
exiftence is problematical, contrary to the opinion of
other writers, who derive it from the Hebrew word p^nx
fignifying poor ; but relates a ftory of Ebion and St. John,
fimilar to what Irenaeus, upon the authority of Polycarp,
records of Cerintlius and St. John ; viz. that the Apoftle,
feeing Ebion in a bath, exclaimed, " Let us depart hence,
'' left the building fall in, and we Durfelves perifti with
^ the impious Ebion." §. 23. Will the Unitarians admit
the accuracy of this anecdote ?

28

only a matter of opinion ; fo that, while one Is
corred, the other may be inaccurate. I fhall
not adduce in reply, as I eafily might, various
points of faft advanced by Epiphanius relative
to the doftrine of the Ebionites", and then
call upon Unitarian conliftency for an implicit
reliance upon the fidelity of his ftatements,
but produce a point of fact exaftly parallel.
Epiphanius diflindly aflerts, that the Ebionites

n Will thofe who pronounce the Ebionites to have
been the true Hebrew Chriftians, credit the veracity of
this Father, when he reprefents them as believing that
God committed the government of this world to the De-
vil, of the world to come to the Chr't/I, and that the Chrlfl,
who was a celeftial being fuperior to the archangels
themfelves, defcended upon and was united to the man
Jefus at his baptifm? And yet, among other abfurdities,
this he precifely delivers as their creed : Auo &c nvaj a-vvig-coa-iv
fx 0s« Tsray/tcvaj, kva y.:v rov Xgifov, ha Ss rov AiccooXov. Kai
TQV /xsy Xpifov ksyscn t« y.sXXovros aicovo; eiXvj^svai tqv Kkr^goVy
Tov h Aiot^oXov rsTOV TTSTrifzua^cii tqv cumvcc, sx '^rpofuyr^c Srjdsv tou
vuvTOKpuTopog JcuTcc citTYi(7iV sKCiTSpajV ccvTCtiV. Ka* rouTQU syBx.ce.
jY,cr8v ysysWYiiJ^svov sx. aTTspfji^uTOs avdgo; >^syova'i, kui e7ri\e^^svTU,
xui 8Tcti x.unx sxKoyYiV vlov 0=8 ?cAry^=vTa, utto T8 uvm^sv sjj civtov
rjX.ovTOc ^gig-ou sv £»5r< Trsgifspa;. Ou ^ixa-KO'jcn 1= sk Q)-ou TroLTgog
AUTOV ysycVvri<T^ui, «AA« exTKT^uij ao; ha roov up)(^ixyfs}MV, [isi^ovu
ds avTcav ovtu, uvtov Is xvpisusiv xcn uyysXoov xcti tcuvtmv vtto tou
vavroxguTopog TrsTroiJjjacVWV. Hseref. 30. §. 16. And in §. 14.
their belief is exprefsly faid to have been, that the Chrift
was c-vvcKp^evTUj conglutinated with the man Jefus.

29

not only rejeded the two firft chapters of St.
Matthew's Gofpel, but alfo the prophetical
writings, and almofl: the whole of the Old
Teflament, with very little refervation indeed.
His words are j AQ^etctf/, Ss o^oXoyno-i y,cit Io-ciak,
Kdi la.Kct)Q' Miicryiv ts Kctt ActPcov, Irjir^v ts tq¥ th
Nfltf»7, ctTrXcidg Sict^e^etfA^tvov Mavcea, ovSev ts ovTct'
jbLSTct Tims^ ^s cvKert cf/^oXoyovTi Tivd roiv 7rpo(p>jTCi}V,
ctXXct Kdi dva.B'efJLATiCiiu-i kch ^svct^i^c-k' .......

WTS yct^ SexovTon Tf]v TlsvTccTevxov Mccvcrscog oXr,f,
ttXXct Tivci, jitjjhiciTcc cLTToSaXXaa'tv, §.18. If there-
fore, from the teftimony of Epiphanius, and
upon the credit of the Ebionites, a fedt which,
neverthelefs, this very author defcribes as re-
fembling that portentous peft of antiquity,
the fabled Hydra, (7roXv^oo(pov TSPci<Tiov, kgli oo? g;-
TTStv Tfig fA>vB-evo^svvig 7roKvx.2<pctXhi 'T^Pctg o(pic>!}i^rj [JLOP(py\v
2v idvTco oLvctTvircoG-oLyAvog, §. 1 .) we expunge from
the Canon of the New Teflament any portion
of the Gofpel of St. Matthew, muft w^e not, to
be confiftent with ourfelves, from the fame tef-
timony, and upon the fame credit, expunge
alfo from the Canon of the Old Teftament the
whole body of the infpired Prophets, and ad-
mit even the Pentateuch itfelf under a fufpi-
cion, that fome parts of our exifting copies
have been interpolated ? Surely this inevitable

30

conclufion will gratify neither fide ; and will
at leaft prove highly unpalatable to thofe
Unitarians, who think with Mr. Stone, that
*' Jewifli prophecy is the fole criterion to dif-
*' tinguifh between genuine and Ipurious Chrif-
*^ tian Scripture^."

But let us confider more minutely the cha-
ra6ter of this boafted Gofpel of the Ebionites.
The produftion itfelf is loft ; and nothing re-
mains of it, except a few extrafts, preferved in
the waitings of the Fathers. It was called
*' the Gofpel according to the Hebrews," and
was certainly known under that title to Cle-
mens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eufebius, and Je-
rome; the latter of whom, obtaining a correct

o See a fingular fermon under this title, preached at a
Vifitation in Elfex by Mr. Stone. I have not here noticed
the teftimony of Eufebius, who remarks, that the Ebion-
ites alfo rejected the Epiftles of St. Paul, whom they de-
nominated an Apoftate. Outo< ds ts ju,ev ATrofoAs 7rao-aj r«j
STTifoAaj aqvYiTsoL^ i^yevTO sivoti Ssjv, aTroroirrjv aTroxaXouvrsj avTOV
rou vofxov, Hift. lib. iii. c. 27. I have not noticed this cir-
cumftance, becaufe the queftion folely turns upon the tef-
timony of Epiphanius. If however v^^e admit it, and it
furely ftands on higher authority than the other alluded
to, we (hall be under the neceffity of reje6ling a ftill larger
portion of the New Teftament, unlefs \<^e abandon the
fideUty of Ebionite Scripture altogether.

31

copy of it from the Nazarenes, tranilated it
both into Greek and Latin. As fo much has
been faid upon this fubjed: both by Jones and
Michaelis, it feems not neceflary to dwell upon
it minutely. Clemens Alexandrinus limply re-
fers to it, quoting a paffage not in the Greek
copy of St. Matthew, or of any other Gofpel.
Origen hkewife quotes from it in the fame
way, fpeaking of it as not of any decided au-
thority. His words are, '' Si tamen placet ali-
*' cui fufcipere illud, non ad aucloritafem^ fed
*^ ad manifejlationem propofitas queeftionis."
" If any one be pleafed to receive it, not as of
*^ any authority, but only for the illuftration
*^ of the prefent quefi:ion^" Eufebius notices,
that it w^as ufed by the Ebionites, who, he
adds, very little efteemed any other; rm >^i7rai9
ryjycpov sttoi^vto Koyov ^. Jerome, in his Catalogue
of lUuftrious Men, certainly feems to defcribe
it as the original Hebrew text of St. Mat-
thew^; but in other parts of his works he re-
prefents it, in one place, as a Gofpel which
moft iWtiik to be the Gofpel according to St.
Matthew, ut plerique autumant ^ ; in another^

P Jones on the C^nop, Part II. phap. 25. §. 3,
q Ibid. §. 5.
I Ibid. §. 13.
s Ibid. §. 15.

32

as a Gofpel which is called by many the au-
thentic Gofpel of St. Matthew * ; and at the
beginning of his third book againfi: the Pela-
gians, he confiders it as a document which, if
its authority ho^ not admitted, may at leaft be
iifed out of refped: to its antiquity ; *' quibus
^^ teftimoniis, ii non uteris ad auftoritatem,
'' utere faltem ad antiquitatem "." Hence Mi-
chaelis, after a particular examination of Je-
rome's different allufions to it, fays, " I am far
'^ from fuppofing that Jerome took the Naza-
^' rene Gofpel for the unadulterated original,
*' as it is evident, from the quotations which
** he has made from it, that it abounded with
'* interpolations^.'' And of the fame opinion is
Michaelis's '' learned and acute translator and
*' annotator. Dr. Herbert Marfli," as the au-
thors of this Yerfion jullly denominate a bibli-
cal critic of the firft celebrit}^ who remarks,
that even when Jerome feems to defcribe it as
the original text of St. Matthew, '' he does
'^ not declare that it was really St. Matthew's
*' unadulterated original. Indeed if he had
*^ fuppofed fo, he could not have ufed at other

« Jones on the Canon, Part II. chap. 25. §. 3i.
»i Michaelis's Introdudlion, vol. iii. part i. p. i8a.
* Ibid. p. 181.

33

'^ times the expreffions, ' quod vocatiir a plerif-
'* que Matthaei authenticum/ and * ut plerique
** autumant juxta Matthaeumy.'* Indeed both
thefe critics, upon a general view of the quef-
tion, reprefent this Gofpel as evidently a gar-
bled produAion, and by no means the true
Hebrew original of St. IMatthew. Nor in their
condemnation of it do they depart from the
decifions of preceding critics. To omit fuch
names as Cafaubon, Mill, Whitby, Fabricius,
and Le Clerc; the '^ learned" Jeremiah Jones,
and the '' venerable" Lardner, critics admired
by the Unitarians, held precifely the fame fen-

y Michaells*s IntroduiStlon, vol. ill. part ii. p. 134.
That Jerome had no higher opinion of it than the other
Fathers, is afTerted alfo by Jones, who makes the follow-
ing renaarks upon a paflage or two of Jerome, unfavour-
able to its authenticity, which I have not above referred
to. " He (Jerome) exprefsly faith. It was the fame with
'^ the Gojpel intitled, according to the Twelve ^pojiles ; (fee
'^ c. 25. §. 15.) but this he exprefsly rejefts as Jpocry-
•' phal in another place, (c. 7. §. 5.) and as a book of the
'^ heretics, wrote by men deftitute of the fpirit and grace
*' of God, without a due regard to truth, c. 7. §. 4. The
** fame appears from his manner of citing it in feveral of
*' the places above, c. 25. For inftance, in that there pro-
" duced, §. 18. he introduces his citations thus; He who
" will believe the Golpel according to the Hebrews.'* On
the Canon, vol. i. part ii. chap. 28.

D

34

timents. The former writer was fo fully con-
vinced of its illegitimacy, that he adduces at
fome length (c. 2Q.) what he confiders as
*^ pofitive proofs that it was apocryphal." The
latter regarded it as a compilation fubfequent
in point of time to the genuine Gofpels, prin-
cipally indeed formed upon the Gofpel of St*
Matthew, but having inferted in it various
*' additions of things taken out of St. Luke's,
^^ (and perhaps other Gofpels,) and other mat-
" ters, that had been delivered by oral tradi-
'' tion^"

That the argument however may have a due
weight given to it in all its different bearings,
I will even admit the external charafter of the
document to ftand as high as the Unitarians
themfelves would place it ; and fhall be fatis-
fied to reft my proofs wholly upon the apo-
cryphal complexion of its internal charafter.
Among other palTages of a fufpicious nature
occurs the following : '^ Behold the mother
*' and brethren of Chrift fpake to him ; John
" the Bapti/l baptizes for the remiffion of fins ;
*^ let us go and be baptized by him. He faid to

2 Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory, vol i. p. i8^.
fid. 1748.

35

'^ them, Li lohat have I jinned, that I have
*' any need to go and to be baptized by him P
" Unlefs my faying this proceed perhaps from
" ignorance ^." Again, in another part, our
Saviour fays, " The Holy Ghqjl, my mother,
'' took me by one of my hairs, and led me to
*' the great mountain Thabor^." Will it be

^ " Ecce mater Domini et fratres ejus dicebant ei, Jo-
'^ hannes Baptifla baptizat in remiffionem peccatorum ; ea-
" mus et baptizemurab eo. Dixit autem eis, Quid peccavi,
" ut vadam et baptizer ab eo ? nili forte hoc ipfum, quod
'^ dixi, ignorantia eft." Quotation from Jerome in Jones,
ibid. §. 15. In another chapter (29th) the fame author
makes the following comment upon this quotation.
" The meaning of this pafTage will be beft perceived from
^' a parallel one in another apocryphal book, entitled,
'^ The Preaching of Peter, in which it was related, that
'^ Chrift confejfed his fins, and was compelled, contrary to
'* his own inclinations, by his mother Mary to Julmit to
.*^ the laptifm of John J*

^ ApTi sXa^s fL= r) [Ji^rjTYjp {X8 to uyiov irVcVfji.oc, sv [xnx. tmv t^<-
^oov JU.8, xcci UTTSveyxs {xs e<c to opo^ to [Jisyu Qu^Mg. Quotation
from Origen, ibid, c, 25. §. 4. If certain paflages are to
be rejected upon the credit of this document, why are not
others to be inferted ? Why, for example, after Matthew
xix. 20. in which our Saviour fays to the rich man, " Go
" and fell what thou haft, and give it to the poor, and
" come and follow m.e," is not the following reading
added as at leaft probable ; " The rich man hereupon be-
/^ gan to fcratch his head, (fcalpere caput fuum,) and was

D 2

36

maintained, that a paflage is to be received
into the Canon of Scripture, which aflerts, that
our blefled Saviour required the baptifm of
John for the remiflion of fuch fins as he had
ignorantly conlmitted, in direcft cqntradiftion
to the teftimony of St. Paul, that he knew no
Jin, 2 Cor. v. 21 ? Or if it be, will not the
authenticity of the other quotation at leaft
be confidered as dubious, in which the Holy
Spirit is exprefsly termed the mother of Chrijt,
and reprefented, in order to make the tranfac-
tion more miraculous, as conveying him to a
lofty mountain by one of the hairs of his
head ? Can paflages like thefe be fo twifted by
the tortuous lubricity of theological comment,
as to elude the grafp of indignant criticifm ?

But the very commencement itfelf of this
fingular produdion, as it is ftated by Epipha-
nius, fufficiently betrays its illegitimacy. The
Tranflators of the New Verfion give us the fol-
lowing information : " The Gofpel/* they fay,
*' of the Ebionites or Hebrews, which did not
*' contain the account of the miraculous con-
** ception of Jefus, began in this manner j It

« difpleafed, Sec* ?" See Jones on the Canon, ibid. §. 5,
Boubtlefs the fame document cannot be lefs competent
to authorize an addition, than an omiflion.

37

^' came to pafs in the days of Herod king of
'' Judea, that John came baptizing with the
*' haptifni of repentance in the river Jordan.
'' See Epiphanius, and Jer. Jones." But in the
preceding note they had thus reafoned : " If
*' it be true, as Luke relates, c. iii. 23. that
" Jefus was entering upon his thirtieth year
^* in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,
*' he mull have been born tivo years at leaft
" after the death of Herod ; a circumftance
'* which alone invalidates the whole flory/'
Now it is fomething fingular, that, while they
objeft to the text of St. Matthew, becaufe it
fixes our Saviour's birth in the days of Herod
the king, who really died, they add, tivo years
before, they ftiould at the fame time contend
for the authenticity of a document, which not
only fuppofes that Chrifl was born in the
reign of Herod, but that Herod was ftill living
when our Saviour was in his thirtieth year, at
the period of the Baptift's public appearance
in the difcharge of his million. Leaving them
however to vindicate their own confiftency, I
ftiall confine myfelf to the fimple ilatement of
the fad. Epiphanius exprefsly declares, that the
Gofpel of the Ebionites began with an account
of John's baptizing with the b^ptifm of re-

d3

38

pentance in the days of Herod Mng of Jiidea;
who, it is agreed on all fides, was dead many
years before. If therefore Epiphanius's rela-
tion be true, and this Gofpel began as he de-
fcribes it, an anachronifm of an extraordinary
kind is apparent at its very outfet, which in-
Haritly fi,ibverts the foundation of the whole
Unitarian argument : and if it be not true,
then the commencement of this Gofpel is ren-
dered uncertain, and the hypothefis raifed
upon it falls to the ground at once of its own
accord. Whether his knowledge of this Gof-
pel were derived from ocular infpeclion or
from vague report, he is admitted to have mif-
reprefented it ; and if he be inaccurate in one
point, how can we trull him in another ? It
is of little confequence, whether his mifrepre-
fentation arofe from inadvertence, ignorance,
or malice ; for if the fact be fo in one, and that
an important infiance, furely it muft render
every part of his teftimony fufpicious.

In whatfoever point of view therefore we
contemplate this document, it betrays evident
traces of a fpurious origin.

I have hitherto taken for granted, what the
authors of the New Verfion afBrm, that the
Cerinthians and Carpocratians rejedled the two

39

firft chapters of St. Matthew, with the excep-
tion of the Genealogy ; and that the Ebionites
rejected them altogether, without that excep-
tion. It may however be queftioned, whe-
ther this is not more than Epiphanius ftates.
He certainly aflerts, that the Gofpel of the
Ebionites began with an account of John the
Baptift, which, as not occurring until the third
chapter in the Greek Gofpel, muft of courfe
exclude the preceding chapters ; but he does
not aflert, that the Gofpel of the Cerin-
thians and Carpocratians began in the fame
manner : on the contrary he tells us, that it
commenced with the Genealogy, precifely as
the Greek Gofpel commences. The latter fecfts,
it is true, ufed a Hebrew Gofpel in many re-
Ipeds fimilar to that of the Ebionites, but evi-
dently not in all, as the difference alluded to
indifputably proves. The Cerinthians and Car-
pocratians therefore, as far as the teftimony of
Epiphanius goes, may be fuppofed to have rer
tained the whole, as well as a part of the dit
puted chapters. Indeed, in another place, he
exprefsly argues againfl: the opinions of the
Cerinthians, from a paffage in the fame chap-
ters, fubfequent to the Genealogy, viz. from
Mat. i. 18. which he would fcarcely perhaps

D 4

40

have done, had not the paflage been received
by them as genuine. His words are thefe :
Dajs' ds TTctKiv UK eXsy^^^^yia-BTdLi giajtcov '/} uvoict th Eucty-
ys^iii (rct<pu)? XeyovTQ^, on evpsS-fj ev ycLqoi £x^^^9 '^9^^
fj o'vvsXS'eiv ctvTH^^,

Let us then briefly confider the dedudion
of the Unitarians from the premifes which
have been fiated. The two firft chapters of
St. Matthew, they fay, were not contained in
the Hebrew Gofpel of the Ebionites, therefore
they are to be rejeded ; but a portion of
them, about one fourth of the whole, was
found in the Hebrew Gofpel of the Cerin-
thians and Carpocratians, therefore this por-
tion is to be retained, and the remainder only
to be rejeded. Is there not however a fallacy
in the conclufion thus haftily drawn ? The re-
je6i:ion of the three parts in queftion cannot
well be made to depend upon the credit of the
Cerinthian and Carpocratian Gofpel, becaufe
it is not aflerted to have been deficient in thefe
refpecis ; it mull folely rell upon that of the
Gofpel of the Ebionites. But it mull be ad-
mitted, that the Gofpel in queftion was but a
mutilated copy of St. Matthew at beft, as it

<= Haeref. 37. §. 7.

41

poffelTed not the Genealogy. If therefore its
credit be more than queftionable in the non-
admiffion of one, and that a prominent part,
how is it to be eftabliihed in the non-admif-
Con of the remaining parts ? Would the fame
hand, which avowedly cut away the Genea-
logy, fcruple to remove alfo the account of the
miraculous conception, and the other events
fubfequently recorded in thefe chapters ?

But the authors of the New Verfion, it may
be faid, depend not wholly upon the tefti-
mony of Epiphanius. They introduce Jerome
alfo as an auxiliary in their caufe, certainly a
more corred:, more learned, and better in-
formed writer, who, they obferve, " affures us,
*^ that the two chapters were wanting in the
'* copies ufed by the Nazarenes and Ebion^
*' ites." So indeed they obferve ; yet may they
be challenged to produce a fingle paiTage from
the voluminous writings of Jerome, in which
any affurance of the kind alluded to is either
expreffed or implied. On the contrary, it
feems not difficult to fliew, that the teftimony
of Jerome makes completely againll them.
This Father, it fliould be recolleded, tranflated
into Greek and Latin the Gofpel of the Naza-
renes, and muft therefore have been well ac-

42

quainted with its contents. In his Catalogue
of Illuftrious Writers he makes the following
allulion to it : '' Mihi quoque a Nazarseis, qui
^ in Beroea, urbe Syriae, hoc volumine utun-
'* tur, defcribendi facultas fuit ; in quo anim-
'^ advertendum, quod ubicunque Evangelifta,
^^ five ex perfona fua, five ex perfona Domini
" Salvatoris Veteris Scripturae tefl:imoniis utitur,
*' non fequatur Septuaginta tranflatorum auc-^
" toritatem, fed Hehraicam ; e quibus ilia duo
" funt ExMgypto vocavi Filium meum, et. Quo-
^' iiiam Nazarceus vocabifur. The Nazaraeans,
" who live in Beroea, a city of Syria, and make
" ufe of this volume, granted me the favour of
*' writing it out ; in which Gofpel there is this
'' obfervable, that wherever the Evangelifl: ei^
'' ther cites himfelf, or introduces our Saviour
*' as citing any paflage out of the Old Tefl:a-
'' ment, he does not follow the tranflation of
'' the LXX. but the Hebreiv copies, of which
" there are thefe two inftances ; viz. that. Out
" of Egypt I have called my Son ; and that,
*' Hejhall he called a Nazarene ^." Is it not

d Jones on the Canon, vol. i. part ii. chap. 25. §. 13.
See alfo Michaelis's Introdu6lion, vol. iii. parti, p. 166, 7;
and Marfh's Notes, part ii. p. 130, i. I have omitted the
other proofs advanced by Michaelis, and more ably urged

43

hence evident, that the fecond of thefe dif-
puted chapters at leaft, where thefe paffages
occur, was contained in the Gofpel of the Na-
zarenes, which both Jerome and Eufebius re-
prefent as the Gofpel aUo of the Ebionites ^ ?
What then becomes of the fuppofed allurance
of Jerome ? And what credit is due to the aC-
fertions of thofe, who are too indolent, for I

by his Annotator, becaufe the fingle proof referred to feems
perfecSlly fatisfa£tory. I fhall however add here the conclu-
lion of Dr. Marfli : " It appears," he remarks, '^ from Notes
" lo, II. to this fe6lion, that the Hebrew Gofpel ufed by
'^ the Nazarenes contained, at leaft, the fecond chapter of
^' St. Matthew. We muft conclude therefore, from the
" connexion of the fubjed, that it contained hkewife the
'^ eight Ici/i verjes of the fiiji chapter, which are Jo clofely
" conneSied with the fecond chapter, that no feparation can
^' ivell take place. The only doubt therefore is, whether
" it contained the Genealogy, Matt. i. i — 17." Ibid.

^ I have confidered the fame Gofpel according to the.
Hebrews, as ufed both by the Nazarenes and Ebionites.
Many critics have indeed furmifed, that fome little dif-
ference exifted between the refpe6live copies of thefe
fe^ls; but as this furmife principally refts on the credit of
Epiphanius's quotations, I have omitted to notice it, par-
ticularly as the teftimony of Eufebius and Jerome is di-
re6l to the point, and as the Authors of the New Verfion
themfelves identify the Gofpel of the Nazarenes with that
of the Ebionites.

44

cannot fuppofe them too ignorant, to examine
the authorities, to which they appeal for the
truth of their liatements ?

Still however they may remark, unwil-
ling to abandon the accuracy of Epiphanius,
that fomething perhaps may be difcovered
in the extracts from the Gofpel of the Ebion-
ites, furnifhed by other writers, to corro-
borate the general credit of his teftimony.
But, unfortunately, here again the faft is com-
pletely on the other fide ; and fomething may
be found not to corroborate, but to invaUdate
his teftimony. In the very paflage where he
fpeaks of the commencement of this Gofpel,
he adds the following quotation : ^' HA^-g jcch Ii;-
'* (rov$' Kdi sSctTTTKrS'f} vtto tov Iuavvov' ycoLi &}f ccr/jXS'ev
*' oLTTO m vSato?, tjvoiyria-civ oi apoLvoi, icctt ei^s to TlvevfJLA
*^ TOV 0SOV TO Ayiov ev ei^si yrspiq-e^ctg' kcltsXB'cvtyi^ kcci
" Gio-yiX^aa-fi^ sl? clvtov, Kctt (poovfi eysvsTo sk ti^ upctva
^' Xeyaa-d' Xv jlch et o vlog o ccycC7rf}T0f, ev (roi f]v^oKfj(rcc.
" Kcct TTctAiv, Eyct) (ryj/xs^ov yeyevvtiHA crs, Jefus alfo
'' went and was baptized by John ; and as he
" afcended out of the water, the heavens were
" opened, and he faw the Holy Spirit of God
'* in the form of a dove defcending and enter-
*' ing into him, and a voice was made from
•^ heaven, faying, Thou art my beloved Son, in

45

" whom I am well pleqfed : and then another,
*' I have this day hegotten thee^y Such is the
extracS of Epiphanius. Let this be compared
with the lubfeqnent extraft made by Jerome
relative to the fame tranfaftion, and the dif-
ference muft appear remarkable. " FacRum eft
** autem, quum afcendiflet Dominus de aqua,
*' defcendit fons omnis Spiritus San6li, et re^
** quievit fuper eum, et dixit ei ; FiU mi, in
*^ omnibus prophetis exfpeclabam te, ut ve-
** nires, et requiefcerem in te ; tu es enim re-
" quies mea ; tu es fihus meus primogenitus,
" qui regnas in fempiternum. It came to pals,
" when the Lord afcended from the water,
** the whole fountain of the Holy Ghoft de-
*' fcended and relied upon him, and faid to
** him. My Son, among (or during all the time
'* of) all the Prophets I was ivaiting for thy
*' coming, that I might rejt upon thee ; for
" thou art my reft ; thou art my firft begotten
" Son, who lliall reign to everlafting ages s."
How are thefe varying pallages to be recon-
ciled ? Both profefs to be taken from the Gof-

^ Jones on the Canon, vol. i. part. ii. chap. 25. §. ir.

s Ibid. §. 16. This indeed is the only extrad which
Epiphanius has in common with any other Father, and
the difFexence we perceive is remarkable.

46

pel according to the Hebrews, That quoted by
Jerome indifputably was ; that quoted by Epi-
phanius refts on the fimple affirmation of the
writer, unfupported by any collateral evidence,
and made by one, whofe character for accu-
racy is, to fay the bed of it, at leaft queftion-
able. Can we poffibly for a moment hefitate
to determine on which fide the balance of
credibility preponderates ?

Having thus endeavoured to demonftrate,
that if, in order to be confiftent, we adopt the
Scriptures of the Ebionites in all refpecls, who
are Hated to have rejeded the two firft chap-
ters of St. Matthew, little will be left to us ei-
ther of the Old Tellament or the New ; that
their Gofpel, as appears both from its external
and internal evidence, could not have been the
original of St. Matthew ; and that, even if it
had, we might have ftill inferred, from the tef-
timony of Jerome, that certainly one, and per-
haps both of the difputed chapters were con-
tained in it ; I. might here conclude the dif-
cuflion : but, by way of fatisfying thofe who
conceive a Hebrew acknowledgment of thefe
chapters to be important, I fliall previoufiy re-
mark, that a particular paflage in them was
diftindlv referred to by an Hebrew Chriftian of

47

a very early age. Hegefippus, who lived at a
period immediately fubfequent to the apofto-
lical, STTt Ty\g 7rqodTV[<; rm oi,7rQq'oKct)v ysvof^svof ^ict^ox'1^,
as Eufebius informs us, fpeaking of Domitian,
obferved, that he too dreaded the coming of
Chrift, as luell as Herod \ eCpoQsiTo ya^ Trjv ttcl^ovtiay
TH X^iT^i u)g Kcci 'Hpu^yi^ ^ : upon which reference
of Hegefippus, it will be only neceflary to give
the opinion of Lardner, ^' This paflage," fays
that difcriminating writer, ^^ deferves to be re-
*^ marked. It contains a reference to the hif-
** tory in the fecond chapter of St. Matthew,
** and fliews plainly, that this part of St. Mat-
*' thew's Gofpel was owned by this Hebrew
'^Chriftiani."

I Ihould likewife add, that, although I have
confidered the document fo often quoted, in
order to preferve the thread of the Unitarian
argument without interruption, as principally
fabricated from the Gofpel of St. Matthew,
becaufe fuch feem certainly to have been the
fentiments of the early writers, I am far from
admitting this point as clearly proved. The
Fathers appear to have fo confidered it from

h Hift. Eccl. lib. ili. chap. 19. §. 20.

» Credibility of the Gofpel Hift. part ii. vol. i. p. 317.

48

the circumftance of its being the only Hebrew
Gofpel with which thej wxre at all acquaint-
ed, combined with their perfuafion, that St,
Matthew himfelf wTote in that language. It
is neverthelefs evident from the fragments of
it ftill extant, that in many refpeds it is not
only very different from the Greek of St. Mat-
thew, but often clofely copied from the other
Gofpels. In the extrads given by Epiphanius
it bears a ftrong refemblance to St. Luke^.

^ The following parallel palTages occur in St. Luke^
and not in St. Matthew : Eyevero tij avi^p ovo[xa.Ti iridsg, xai
uvTO^ cio$ SToov TpiUKOVTx sio-TjXdsv fiij Trjv oninxv ^ijU-wvoj. Jones
on the Canon, vol. i. part ii. chap. 25. §. 11. Ka* ctvTo§ >jy
i lri(r8$ (oaei stcov rpuxxovTa, Luke iii. 23. EiCDjX^ev eij rriv
oiKioLv ^ifxcovos, Luke iv. 38. I^tjxwva tov ZyiXuxtyiV^ ibid. 2*-
/E^tt;va tov xaAoL'jotsvov Z>jXa)T>3V, Luke vi. 15. EysvcTO sv tolu;
r}[j,spcns 'HpwStf Ttf /Sao-jXswj Ti]g lotjlciiac, ibid. Eysvsro ev raij
rifji,spcci$ 'HpeoSa rs /SacriXsa;^ ttjj Idluiuc, Luke i. 5. BtxTmo-iici
fjisrctvoniig, ibid. 'BuTrrKTfjiu fj^stavonx^, Luke iii* 3. The fame
expreffion is alfo found in Mark i« 4. The parentage of
John the Baptift is likewife given, which no one of the
Evangelifts records, except St. Luke. 2u ju-a e» 6 uiog 6 aya-
TnjTOj, sv G-oi YirjloxYi(ra, ibid, ^y si 6 vlog fj.8 6 otyocrrriTtog, sv (Toi
vivhycYi<roi, Luke iii. 22. In St. Matthew the words are,
Oyroj sg-iv 6 vlog fji^ov 6 otycuTTYiTOg, sv 00 )jySox>)cr«, chap. iii. ly,
Eyo) (TYiy.sqov ysyswYiKci gs. It is lingular that thefe words
do not occur in the text of St. Luke, but were neverthe-
lefs read in the following MiT. and Fathers, &c. referred to
by Griefbach, '^ D. Cant, veron. verc. colb. corb ** Clem,

49

Dr. Marfh perhaps would fay, that this only
proves the author of the Gofpel in queftion to
have borrowed from the fame fource as St.
Luke. But whether this reafoning be corred:,
or not, it is fufficient for my purpofe limply to
note the fad, that in the extrads made by
Epiphanius a verbal refemblance to St. Luke
is in feveral inllances ftrikingly vifible.

Upon the whole therefore I have rendered
it, I truft, more than probable, that the Gofpel
acmrding to the Hehreivs, whatfoever might
have been its priftine (late, if indeed it ever
laid claim to apoftolical purity, cannot, in the
ftate in which it is known to us, be corredly

" Method. Hilar. La(?l:ant. Jur. Fauflus manich. ap. Aug.
" Codd. ap. Aug. qui tamen moriet in antiquiorihis grffi-
" cis haec non inveniri."' M>j stti^^jliu sirs^ui^rio-x xpsxs thto
TO 7ru(rxo(. ^xysiv ae5' u^awv ; Epiph. H^eref. 30. §. 22. Ettj-
dujktja £7rsd'jjU,ry(7a t8to to 'Tracr^a, tpayeiv joisd' WjU-cov. Luke xxii. I5»
Here, if Epiphanius is to be credited in his extfacl, is a
manifeft perverfion of our Saviour's meaning, at war with
the context, by giving an interrogative turn to the fen-
tence, in order to fandlion the Ebionite principle of ab-
ftaining from animal food. Is it poffible after this to con-
template the Gofpel according to the Hehreivs, as repre-
fented to us by Epiphanius, in any other light than as a
garbled and fpurious production ? Nor indeed do the quo-
tations of it, preferved by Origen and JeromCj place it in
a more refpedtable point of view*

50

confidcred as the unadulterated original of St.
Matthew. And of this perhaps our new Tranf-
lators thenafelves feel a little confcious ; other-
wife they would fcarcely have been fatisfied
with pointing out certain paflages for rejec-
tion, without fuggefting alfo certain additions,
unlefs indeed they apprehended (which I ra-
ther fufpeft to have been the cafe) that the
abfurdity evident in fome of thefe would have
Ihaken the credit of their whole argument.

51

CHAP. III.

Authenticity of the twofirjl Chapters of
St. Luke.

1 HAVE not interfered in the former in-
fiance, nor do I mean to interfere in this, with
the C07ijeBiiral ground for the rejection of
Scripture advanced by the Tranflators of this
Verfion, becaufe arguments iimilar to thofe
which are ufed by them have been already
often adduced, and as often refuted ; becaufe
in fome inftances the moll fatisfa(ftory anfvvers
are given by the very authors, to whom they
refer for fupport; and becaufe, above ail, I am
fully perfuaded that the flippery fyftem itfelf
of conjeftural criticifm refts on no folid foun-
dation. But where a fort of authority is ap-
pealed to, I fliall confider its validity.

The Tranflators fay ; " The two firft chap-
^' ters of this Gofpel were wanting in the co-
•^ pies ufed by Marcion, a reputed heretic of
*' the fecond century ; who, though he is re-
" prefented by his adverfaries as holding fome

E 2

51

" extravagant opinions, was a man of learn-
" ing and integrity, for any thing that appears
*' to the contrary. He, hke fome moderns, re-
" jedled all the EvangeHcal hiftories excepting
" Luke, of which he contended th^t his own
*' was a corred: and authentic copy."

I Ihall not undertake to difcufs the colla-
teral queftion refpefting the learning and in-
tegrity of Marcion ; becaufe it is perhaps of
little importance in itfelf, and becaufe we have
no fure data from which we can form an im-
partial decifion upon the fubjeft. For the
odium theologicuvi in the breafts of his adver-
faries, great allowance, I am aware, is to be
made : but I muft enter my unqualified pro-
teft againft the Unitarian mode of conftantly
interpreting the Orthodox reprefentation of an
heretical character by the rule of contraries; of
uniformly reading for vice, virtue ; for folly,
talent; and for want of principle, integrity.
But as the Authors of this Verfion feem dif-
pofed to facrifice the univerfal perfuafion of
antiquity, upon the fubjed: of St. Luke's text,
to the particular opinion of Marcion, let us
examine a little the nature and extent of his
teftimony. We are told, that the two firft
chapters were wanting in the copies ufed b/

53

him ; and yet the four firft verfes are retained
as indifputably genuine. How is this contra-
didion to be reconciled ? Certainly fome ex-
planation of it Ihould have been given. Were
the four firft verfes retained fimply for the
convenience of an additional argument, in
order to identify beyond difpute the writer of
this Gofpel with the writer of the Afts of the
Apoftles, and fo to deduce from that circum-
ftance the following ingenious difplay of cri-
ticifm ? *' The Evangelift," it is obferved,
*^ in his preface to the Ads of the Apoftlcs,
*' reminds his friend Theophilus, A6ls i. ] .
" that his former hiftory contained an account
^' of the pubhc miniftry of Jefus, but makes
" no allufion to the remarkable incidents con-
*' tained in the two firft chapters, which there-
^' fore probably were not written by him ;'* as
if, when an author refers to a former produc-
tion, fimply to point out its connexion with
the one which he is compofing, he muft al-
ways be fuppofed diftincftly to enumerate every
fubje6l contained in it. Should this be the
only reafon for efteeming the four verfes in
queftion genuine, our new Tranflators furely
treat their favourite Marcion, whofe fingle au-
thority they have to plead for rejecting the re-

£ 3

54

mainder of thefe chapters, very unceremoni-
oiifly and contemptuoufly, becaufe he exprefsly
confidered them alfo as fpurious. As they ap-
pear not to have invelligated very accurately
the teitimony upon which they rely, I fhall
point out to them v^hat it really was, and will
take my proofs from a work with which
they are themfelves doubtlefs well acquainted,
^' Lardner's Hillory of Heretics."

Epiphanius, from whom we learn moft re-
fpefting the Gofpel in queftion, informs us,
that it refembled the Gofpel of St. Luke, much
mutilated, being defective both in the begin-
ning, the middle, and the end ; particularly
that at the beginning it wanted the Preface^
(viz. the four verfes ilill retained in the New
Verfion,) and the account of Elizabeth, of the
falutation of the Angel to the Virgin Mar}^ of
John and Zacharias, of the nativity at Bethle-
hem, of the Genealogy, and of the Baptijm.
*0 fA^sv yccp %ctp5£,;cT);p r^ ;cctTcc Aukclv (ryifj^dLivn to iva/y^
yzXiQV, cog Jk Yia^cormtcL^cttj fju'tirs ct^x^iv sxct)V, y-'^lTZ (^S(roL,
f^rjTe TsAog, Ifia^Tii^ l3)iQpck)f/.evii vtto zsoXXcov (rriTcov stsxc^

TOV TpOTTOV SvB-Vg JLISV yctp SV TV\ Ct^X^ TTCtnO, rcL Ct/TT etp"

%»;5-Ty Ai^KA 'uss7rpoLyfA.ctTevju.svcc, t^t e^iv oog Asyer STrei-
^riTTsp-zyoAXoi STTsxsi^n^cLv Kcti let s^yjg, Kai Tct we^i TVS'
EAiQ-ci^BTj KO^i TOV AyfsXov sva^yfsAi'CofA^svou t^v Ma^icc^

55

yevfjcrscos-j yevsct^ayia^, Kcti Tf\^ rov "QctTrTia-f^a/ro? vtto-
S'sasaf' TOLvra zsavToL vysptjco-^ctf ctTrsTT'/iayja-e, Hasr.
42. §. 11.* Hence therefore it appears, that
Marcion rejected the Preface which the New
Verfion admits, and alfo that part at leaft of
the third chapter which contains the particu-
lars of our Saviour's Baptifm and Genealogy;
a defalcation more extenfive than the modeft
lop of the Unitarians "^. But this is not all.
Lardner contends, that not a fingle paflage of
St. Luke, with the exception of the words, *^ In
*^ the Jifteenth year of Tiberius Ccpfar,'' from
the Jirji verfe of the firji chapter, down to the

I Lardner's Hiftory of Heretics, p. 250. note q.

"1 Epiphanius indeed, immediately after the words
above quoted from him by Lardner, fays, that the Gofpel
of Marcion began thus : " In the fifteenth year of Tiberius
" Ccefar, &c." Kai a^%>3V t» svayfsXis stocks tuvtyiv. Ev tm
TrsvTSKon^sxoiTM £T6t TiSsgiB KacKrugo§ koli tol e^vjg. But he adds,
that Marcion preferved no regular order of narration, to,
^= TrpOfi^TfiO-iv avu) xaTui, ajc og^oog /Sa^i^cov, aXXa egf>ocdi8pyriixcVui.g
iToiVTa -TTspivossoov. Bcfides, as he had juft aflerted the omif-
fion of the Baptifm and Genealogy, it feems impoffible
that he could have been either fo abfurd, or fo forgetful,
as directly to contradi6l hinjfelf in the very next fentence,
Theodoret alfo mentions Marcion's rejedion of the Genea-
logy, Kui T>jv ysnciLKoyioi,v TrBpixo^ug 8cc^ Lardner, ibid. p.

E 4

56

thwteenth verfe of the fourth chapter inclufive,
was to be found in the Gofpel of Marcion.
His argument is principally grounded upon the
following extradl from Tertullian : '' Anno
*^ quinto decimo principatus Tiberiani propo-
^' nit Deum defcendifle in civitatem Galileae
'' Caphernaum ;" Contra Marc. lib. iv. §. 7.
which he confiders as given by Tertullian for
the commencement of Marcion's Gofpel, and
which he thus tranflates : '' In the fifteenth
*' year of Tiberius Caefar God defcended into
*' Capernaum, a city of Galilee." Now as we
are affured by Juftin Martyr, Tertullian, and
others, that Marcion believed Jefus to be a ce-
leftial Being, or real Divinity, fent from the
fupreme God, who was fuperior to the Creator
of the world ; and as we read, Luke iv. 3 1 . that
Jefus " went down to Capernaum, a city of
*' Galilee;" thefe circumftances alone, without
any additional reafoning, feem almoft indif-
putably to prove, that the thirty-firjl verfe of
the fourth chapter, with the fimple date of the
period prefixed, was the precife commence-
ment of this Gofpel, as pointed out by Tertul-
lian ".

n Marcion, it is obvious, could not, confiftently with his
principles, have acknowledged the Baptifm and Genea-

57

Independently of this complete abfciffion,
Epiphanius gives at large a variety of other
omiilions, and of interpolations, which he
dwells upon minutely.

If then our new Tranflators conceive the
whole of Marcion's evidence to be valuable,
why do they adopt one part and neglecft the
other ? Why do they not likewife fairly tell
us to what extent we mull proceed, if we re-
gulate our Canon of Scripture by his rule ?
There is no doubt of his having difa vowed
every Gofpel but his own, of his having re-
ceived no other part of the New Teftament
except certain Epitlles of St. Paul garbled, and
of his having rejected altogether the writings
of the Old Teilament^. Hence furely fome
little perplexity mull arife, when we attempt
to reconcile the canon of the Marcionites and
the Ebionites, (whofe affillance in purifying the
Gofpel of St. Matthew muft not be forgotten,)
without facrificing the credit of either. The

logy : neither, for the fame reafon, could he have ad-
mitted the Temptation, and the Difcourfe in the Synagogue,
contained in the fourth chapter, as both occurrences are
conne<9:ed with allufions to the Old Teftament; and we
(hall prefently fee how free he made with thefe.
*> Lardner, ibid.

58

Ebionites rejeded only a part of the Old Tef-
tament, retaining the greateft portion of the
Pentateuch at leaft ; the Marcionites rejected
the whole. The Marcionites received almoft
all St. Paul's Epiftles ; the Ebionites held that
Apoftle and his writings in abhorrence. Both
indeed agreed in repudiating every Gofpel ex-
cept their own ; but unfortunately their re-
fpe6live Gofpels were widely different from
each other. Reduced to this lamentable di-
lemma, can we ad: with greater wifdom than
to abandon both Ebionites and Marcionites ;
to prefer fimplicity to fraud, and confiftency
to contradiftion ?

But, waving every other conlideration, let
us examine a little fome of the internal pre-
tenfions of Marcion's Gofpel to legitimacy.
Among the extravagant opinions imputed to
him, were the following: that the Creator of
the mvi/ible world was a Deity diftind: from,
and fuperior to, the Creator of the vifible world ;
the former being goodnefs itfelf, the latter
good and evil ; the latter the God of the Old,
the former the God of the New Teftamcnt:
that Jefus was the Son of the Supreme Deity,
afluming the appearance of manhood when he>
tirft dcfcended from heaven, and was feen in

59

Capernaum, a city of Galilee ; and that a prin-
cipal part of his miflion was to deftroy the
Law and the Prophets, or the revelation of
that inferior God, who created only the vifible
world. Hence Marcion found it convenient
to get rid of every allufion to our Saviour's
nativity, becaufe he objeded to believe that
Jefus was mail, certainly not upon the Unita-
rian principle, of objecting to believe that he
was more than man ; and thus we find his
Golpel commencing precifely where we might
have expected it to commence.

A favourite text with the Marcionites was,
Luke viii. 21. in which our Saviour fays, *' My
*^ mother and my brethren are thofe who hear
^' the word of God, and do it;" becaufe they
confidered it as proving that Chrifl: owned no
mortal confanguinity: but the 19th verfe flood
direftly in their way, '' Then came to him Ms
" mother and his brethren, and could not come
'' at him for the prefs ; " the words therefore,
his mother and his brethren, they expunged.
If it be faid, might not the fame words have
been wanting in the genuine copies of St.
Luke ? the anfwer is obvious : they certainly
might have been ; but what proof is there that
they were ? Are they omitted in any of the

66

three hundred and fifty-five manufcripts which
have been collated, or in any of the verfions ?
Not in one. And do they not feem neceflary
to the connexion of the fubfequent verfe, in
which it is obferved, *' And it was told him
*^ by certain, which faid, Thy mother and thy
*' brethren ftand without, defiring to fee thee?*'
Befides, we perceive thefe very expreffions in
the genuine Gofpel of St. Matthew, (c. xii. 46.)
where the fame tranfa6T:ion is recorded. Could
they have been inferted there by the hand of
fome wicked Ebionite ? This however the Uni-
tarians cannot confillently allow ; becaufe, in
their judgment, the Ebionites were no inter-
polators. Muft we not then conclude, when,
as in this inftance, an omiffion is pleaded in
one Gofpel w^hich occurs not in another,
which alfo deftroys the connexion of the con-
text, and which the party defending it has an
intereft in fupporting, that the theological
pruning-hook has been indifputably at work?
Again; our Saviour addrefles his heavenly
Father as '' Lord of Heaven and Earth," Luke
X. 11. an appellation which completely mih-
tated againft the creed of Marcion, who diftin-
guilhed between the Lord of heaven, (that is,
the heaven of heavens,) or the Lord of the i;?-

dl

vtfihle world, and the Lord of the earthy or the
Lord of the terrejlrial and vifible world. We
therefore find, that in his Gofpel the latter
part of the appellation was fupprefled, our Sa-
viour being introduced as only ufing the terms^
*^ Lord of heaven." But fince precifely the
fame expreffions, '* Lord of heaven and earth,'^
are read in St. Matthew, (c. xi. 25.) and fince
Marcion, as we have i^t^n, had private reafons
for the omiffion, we cannot furely hefitate in
determining which is the genuine text.

The greateft liberty however feems to have
been taken with thofe paflages which tend tp
confirm the authority of the Old Teftament.
Hence were omitted, in the eleventh chapter
of St. Luke, the verfes 30, 31, and 32, which
allude to Jonah, to the Queen of the South, to
Solomon, and to Nineveh ; and the verfes 4g,
50, 51, which fpeak of the blood of the pro-
phets, and of Abel and Zacharias : in the nine-
teenth chapter, the verfes 45, 46, in which
our Saviour expels the money-changers from
the Temple : in the twentieth chapter, the
verfes 17, 18, in which occurs a quotation
from the Pfalms; and the verfes 37, 38, where
an allufion is made to the divine vifion exhi-
bited in the bulh to Mofes : in the twenty-firfi:

62

chapter, the verfes 21, 22, which recognize a
prophecy of Daniel : and in the twenty-fe-
cond chapter, the verfes 35, 36, and 3/, in the
laft of which a prophecy of Ifaiah is repre-
fented as about to be accomphfhed. Now
every one of thefe texts, omitted by Marcion,
are to be found in the correfponding paflages
both of St. Matthew and of St, Mark, except
the two firft and the laft, the former of
which however are in St. INIatthew, and the
latter is in St. Mark. And it fliould be ob-
ferved, that thefe areP the principal texts of

P Perhaps if to thofe, which are mentioned above, we
add Luke xviii. 31^ 32, 33, we may fay all; and thefe like-
wife were omitted by Marcion, as the firft of them af-
ferted, that " All things which are written Lt/ the Pro-
" phets concerning the Son of Man fhall be accom-
" plifhed." Indeed a fimilar declaration is made, Luke
xxiv. 44, 45, 46 3 but I very much doubt whether Mar-
cion's Gofpel had any thing in common with St. Luke
after the preceding verfe, for the following reafons:
Epiphanius ftates, that it was defcftive at the ejid as well
as at the beginning, Hseref. 42. §. ii; and that he had
proceeded regularly to the end in his refutations of every
part in which Marcion had abfurdly retained any expref-
fion of our Saviour hoftile to his own doctrine : srwj Iwj
rsXtff lis^ilK^ov, ev olg (potivsrui YiXi^ioog xcc^' eocvT8 eiri ravTag ru$
Tra/sajufivacra? too ts '^ooTYjpog xcci roit ATrog-oXov >^b^si$ (pvKurlaiv,
§. 10, Now the laft notice of this kind which he takes

63

St. Luke, in which the Old Teftameftt is
quoted with diftind: approbation. There are
indeed two pailages of this defcription, which
were not erafed; viz. Luke xiii. 28. and Luke
xxiv. 25. but thefe were ingenioully accom-
modated to the docftrine of the Marcionites.
In the firft it is faid, '' There ihall be weeping
/' and gnafliing of teeth> when ye fliall fee
" Abraham, and Ifaac, and Jacob, and all the
*^ prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you
'^ yourfelves thruft out." Here, inftead of
*^ when ye fliall fee Abraham, and Ifaac, and
" Jacob, and the prophets^ in the kingdom of
'' God," Marcion read, '' when ye fliall fee all
*' thejuji in the kingdom of God." In the fe-
cond paflage, our Saviour thus addrefles two
of his difciples after his refurreftion, '' O fools,
*' and flow of heart to believe all that the pro^

IS contained in the- 39th verfe, the fubjeft of which is con-
cluded at the 43d verfe. The refult is obvious. BefideS;,
it ftiould not be forgotten, that in a former paflage he had
abfolutely erafed a declaration of the fame nature, not
indeed fo fully expreffed as this. Epiphanius, it is true, 15
in general fufficiently inaccurate ; but if any dependence
can be placed upon his ftatements, it is in the cafe of
Marcion's Gofpel and Apoftolicon, which he profefles to
have read, and from which, for the object of refutation,
he made, he fays, numerous extracts.

64

*' phets have fpoheiiy This he changed into
** Slow of heart to believe all that I have
*^ Jpoken to you^y

When therefore thefe feveral circumftances
are duly conlidered ; when we perceive fo
many omiffions, and fuch ftriking deviations
in Marcion's Gofpel, all pointing one way, all
tending to the fupport of his own peculiar fyf-
tem ; and when alfo we difcover parallel paf-
fages in the genuine Gofpels of St. Matthew
and St. Mark, fometimes in one, and fome-
times in both of them, where the difputed ex-
preffions appear; mull it not argue an infantine
credulity almoft beyond example, a credulity,
which no refled:ion can corred:, no experience
cure, to conceive it probable, that the text of
Marcion was the unadulterated text of St.
Luke ? What poffible chance could have pro-
duced fo great a variety of readings, and that
at fo early a period, all meeting in a common

q It may be added, that in all the inftances adduced,
the Pefliito, or old Syriac Verlion, is ftrictly confbrmable
with our received Gofpels, and dire6lly againft Marcion's;
an argument which may perhaps be of fome weight with
thofe who juftly admit that Verfion '' to be of the moft re^
*' 7note antiquity^ and of the highejl authority" Introduc-
tion to the New Tranllation, p. 15.

65

centre ? A refult fo uniform never furely could
have been effeded by a fimple combination of
contingencies, but mull have been fraudulently
fecured by the loaded die " of a fyftematical
*' theology." If the opinion of Lardner on
this point be important, whofe Hillory of He-
retics muft be allow^ed to be fufficiently favour-
able to herefy, that alfo v^ill be found adverfe to
the Unitarian argument. " Upon an impartial
" review," he obferves, ^^ of thefe alterations,
*' fome appear to be trifling, others might arife
'^ from the various readings of different copies :
** but many of them are undoubtedly dejigned
*^ perverjions, intended to countenance, or at
*' leaft not diredly contradid:, thofe ahfurd
^^ principles which he and his followers ef-
*' poufed^" But Le Clerc is more harfh in
his cenfure ; and heiitates not to term thofe
abfolutely mad, by whom the defalcations of
the corrupted Gofpel of Marcion are ap-
proved ^

^ Hiftory of Heretics, p. 261.

« Docebat Marcion Chriftum venifTe, ut opera Crea-
toris dilTolveret. At de Chrifto nihil norat, nifi quod ex
Novo Teftamento acceperat, unde contrarium plane li-
quet 5 nil! qu2ecumque Marcionis fententiae adverfantur,
quae innumera funt, infana licentia refecentur ; quod
HQmo,fui compos^ probaverit. Hift. Ecclefiaftica, p. 649.

F

66

Indeed the Tranflators of the New Verfiou
/hemfelves, whatfoever convenience they may
find in depriving of canonical authority the
commencement of St. Luke's Gofpel, becaufe
it was not to be found in '" the copies of Mar-
*' cion/' do not always pay a fimilar regard to
the fame precious relicks of reputed herefy.
It will not perhaps be denied, that the Scrip-
tures of Marcion muft be, in all refpeds, of
equal validity ; that the credit of his Atto^oXikov
inuft vie with that of his Evctyfs^iov, and that
iDoth muft ftand or fall together. Yet we find
that in Galat. i. 1 . where St. Paul calls himfelf
*^ ati Apoftle, not from men, nor by man, but
*' by Jefus Chrift, and God the Father, who
'^ raifed him from the dead," Marcion omitted
the words God the Fathe?^ in order, as Jerome
obferves, to point out that Chrift raifed him-
felf up by his owii power ; ^' Omittebat Mar-
^' cion, Kai &s^ Ttcnqog in ejus kiroqoKiy.co volens
^' exponere Chriftum, non a Deo patre, fed per
" femet ipfum fufcitatum." Hieron. in Galat.
\. \^ But we do not find that thefe words
are omitted, or even marked by itahcs, in the
New Vedion: on the contrary, an argument is

^ Lardner's Hiftory of Heretics, p. 265,

67

founded upon them in the notes, to prove tha€
*' here Jefus Chrift is diftinguiflied from God,
*' to whom he was fubordinate, and by whofe
'' power, and not his own, he was raifed from
^' the dead." Were the Tranflators aware of
this circumftance ? They could not have been
well ignorant of it, as Griefbach, whofe text
they profefs to follow, diflinctly refers to it in a
note. But they may have been negligent. Sup-
pofing this then to have been the cafe, let us
proceed to another reading in the Apoftolicon,
which they certainly did not overlook, viz.
1 Cor. XV. 47. becaufe they exprefsly remark,
that '' Marcion is accufed by TertuUian of in-
*^ ferting here the word kv^lo^J' Our common
reading runs thus : '' The fecond man is the
" Lord from heaven;'* S'svTe^og uvS-pcoTro^ kvpios-
g^ iipctvii. This he read, '^ the fecond is the Lord
" from heaven;" ^evrs^o^ Kv^iog e^ i^^oLvii : but
they read, '' the fecond man will be from hea-
" ven." Thus, in the very teeth of his autho-
rity, they admit the word av^^uTro^, which he
rejected, and rejed: the word kv^iq^, which he
admitted ; and even prefume to found an ar-
gument for the rejeftion of the latter expref-
fion upon the circumftance of his having ad-
mitted, or, as they fay, inferted it. Where is

F 2

68

the confiftency of all this ? Nor does their de-
reli61:ion of profeffed principle terminate here.
They modeftly obferve in their Introdu6lion,
*' If this Verfion of the Chriftian Scriptures
" poffelTes any merit, it is that of being tranf-
" lated from the moll corred: text of the ori-
*' ginal which has hitherto been publifhed/*
p. 8. Tet in the prefent inftance, and this is
not the only one of the kind", they venture to
difcard " the moft corre6l text of the original
*^ which has hitherto been publifhed," the text
of Griefbach, that identical text, in which, as
in one of the highefl credit, they profeffed im-
plicitly to confide ; thus coolly throwing over-

« Another occurs i Cor. x. 9. where Marcion, Grief-
bach, and the received Text, all read, " Let us not tempt
<* Chri/i;** which they change into, " Nor let us try (tempt)
" the Lord," It is true they take no notice of Marcion,
but they feem to exprefs their furprize that the word
Chri/i " is retained by Griefbach, even in his fecond edi-
^^ tion." They do not indeed any where reprefent Grief-
bach's text as abfolutely perfect, yet they confider it as
perfeft as the prefent ftate of criticifm will admit; for
they fay, *' The Editors of this work offer it to the public
^ as exhibiting to the Englifh reader a text not indeed ah- .
^'^ folittely perfeSi, but approaching as nearly to the Apo»
*' ftolical and Evangelical originals, as the prefent flate of
*^ facred criticifm will admit ; nor do they hold it up as a
" faultlefs tranflation, Sec/' Introd. p. 30*

69

board the very pilot, to whofe boafted guid-
ance, in their paffage through the perilous
deeps of manufcript criticifm, their inexpe-
rienced bark was avowedly committed.

But, after all, what certain proof exifts that
the Marcionites themfelves confidered their
Gofpel as the compofition of St. Luke ? If the
aflertion of the new Tranflators be received,
no doubt can be entertained upon the fubjeft,
becaufe they advance this unqualified affirma-
tion: " Marcion, like fome moderns," (mean-
ing, it is prefumed, the admirers of Evanfon,
for the fed of Unitarianifm is itfelf inter-
feded,) '' rejeded all the Evangelical hiftories
^' except St. Luke, of which he contended,
'^ that his own was a correal and authentic
" copy'' Inftead, however, of preffing them
with oppofite authority myfelf, I Ihall limply
confront their ftatement with the very diffe-
rent one of a critic, to whom both parties are
difpofed to lifien with much deference; the
*' learned and acute'* Annotator of Michaelis.
*' It has been very generally believed," fays
Dr. Marfh, " on the authority of Tertullian
" and Epiphanius, that Marcion wilfully cor-
" rupted the Gofpel of St. Luke. Now it is
^^ true, that the long catalogue of Marcion's

F3

70

*' quotations, which Epiphanius has preferved
*' in his forty-fecond Herefy, exhibits readings
*' which materially differ from thofe of the
*' correfponding palTages in St. Luke's Gofpel ;
*^ confequently, i/'Marcion really derived thofe
" quotations from a copy of St. Luke's Gofpel,
*^ that copy mull have contained a text which
^* in many places materially differed from our
'^ genuine text, though the queftion will ftill
•' remain undecided, whether the alterations
" were made by Marcion himfelf, or whether
*^ he ufed a manufcript, in which they had been
** alreadv made. But that Marcion ufed St.
^* Luke's Gofpel at all, is a pofition which has
" been taken for granted, luithout the leajt
^' proof. Alarxiojt himfelf never pretended that
** it was the Gofpel of St. Luke, as TertuUian
*' acknowledges ; faying, ' Marcion Evangelio
'' fuo nullum afcribit autoremj Adv. Marcion.,
*' lib. iv. c. 2. It is probable therefore that
" he ufed fome apocryphal Gofpel, which had
^' much matter in common with that of St.
*^ Luke, but yet was not the fame. On this
'' fubjeft fee Grielbach, Hiftoria Textus Epifto-
" larum Paulinarum, p. 91, 92, and Loeffler's
'* differtation entitled, ' Marcionem Pauli Epi-
*=" ftolas et Lucas Evangelium adulterafle dubita-

71

*' tur/ which is printed in the firfl: volume of
" the CommentationesTheologicce^/*

As the opinions of Griefbach, to whom a re-
ference is made, defervedly rank high in the ef-
timation, not only of the world in general, but
of the Unitarians in particular, it may be proper
to remark, that the argument of the German
critic, in the paflage above pointed out, tends
to prove the impropriety of denominating
Marcion a corrupter of St. Luke's text, becaufe
he never reprefented his Gofpel as written by
that Apoftle. The refult, however, drawn by
Griefbach himfelf from this pofition being dif-
ferent from that of Dr. Marlh, I fhall give it
in his own language : '^ Hoc Marcioni propo-
" fitum fuifle videtur, ut ex Evangeliftarum,
*' atque praefertim e Lucae commentariis con-
'* cinnaret fuccincftam de munere, quo Chriftus
*' pubUce functus erat, atque de ultimis fatis

* Mar{li*s Michaelis, vol. iii. part ii. p. i5o. Dr.
Marfh might have added a paflfage or two from Epipha-
nius, indire(Slly at lead bearing on the fame point. In-
ftead of afferting that the Marcionites reprefented their
Gofpel as that of St. Luke, Epiphanius only fays, that
they ufed a Gofpel which refemhled that of St. Luke ^ovvi
?e x.s)(^pYiTcti T8TW TOO ^!xpo(.KTr)gi rca kcctcc As-kolv Eu«y/sXia>, §. 9.
and that they themfelves (imply called it the Gofpel to Trao*
ayrcov XsyojXsvov Eyay isAiov, §. lO.

F 4

72

*' ejus narrationem, ita adornatam, ut infer-
** viret illorum hominum ufibus, qui quantum
*^ poffunt longiffime a Judaifmo difcedere, eam-
*^ que ob caufam, negledis Vet. Teft. libris, fo-
" lis difcipulorum Chrifti fcriptis uti. vellent, et
*^ hsec e philofophiae fuce legibus interpretaren-
*^ tur. Talibus itaque lecloribus cum Evan-
*' gelium fuum deftinaret, collegit ex Evange-
" liflarum fcriptis ea, quae huic hominum ge-
^' neri grata effe fciret, omijjis omnibus, quce
" ledoribus fuis difplicere potrnfjenti T

y Perhaps the reader may not think me too minute if
I fubjoin the fentiments of another highly efteemed writer
upon the fame fubjeft, the accurate and laborious Tille-
mont. It is this : Pour le Nouveau Teftament, des quatre
Evangiles il recevoit feulement une partie de celui de S.
Xuc, qu'il n'attribuoit neanmoins ni a S, Luc, ni a aucun
autre des Apotres ou des difciples, ni a quelque perfonne
que ce fuft. Dans la fuite fes fecSlateurs I'attribuerent a
Jefus-Clinji mefme, difant neanmoins que S. Paul y avoit
ajoute quelque chofe, comme I'hiftoire de la paffion. lis
le changeoient tons les jours felon qu'ils efloient preflez
par les Catholiques^ en retranchant et y ajoutant ce qu'il
leur plaifoit. lis en oftoient fur tout les pafTages, qui y
font citez de I'ancien Teftament, et ceux ou le Sauveur re-
connoift le Createur pour fon pere. Hittoire Ecclef. vol.
ii. p. 123. ed. 1732. It is curious to remark the different
conclufions deduced by three refpedable critics from the
fame prcmifes. Tillemont conceives, that Marcion made
his feleclions from the genuine Gofpel of St. Luke 5 Dr.

73

- Upon the whole then, taking a retrofpedive
view of what has been advanced upon both
topics, will Unitarian candour ad unworthy
of itfelf, if, inftead of rejefting any part of
St. Matthew's Gofpel upon the credit of the
Ebionites, or any part of St. Luke's Gofpel
upon the credit of the Marcionites, it be dif-
pofed to give a due weight to that text, the
authority of which no biblical critic of emi-
nence has ever yet attempted to fhake, if it
put the concurrent teftimony of antiquity, fup-
ported by the accurate collation of Manu-
fcripts. Fathers, and Verfions, into one fcale,
and throwing the fpurious Gofpel of Ebion,
and the more fpurious Gofpel of Marcion, into
the other, behold them ignominioufly kick the
beam ?

Marfh, not from the genuine, but from fome apocryphal
Gofpel of the fame Evangelift ; and Griefbach, from St.
Luke, St. Matthew, and St. Mark indifcriminately. All
however coincide in the polition, that Marcion did not
affert his Evangelion to be " a correct and authentic copy
<^ofSt.Luke.^'

74

CHAP. IV.

Liiermediaie State hetween Death and the Re-
farreBion. Authenticity of Luke xxiii. 43.

XjLS the Authors of this Verfion are manir
feftly difciples of thofe fond philofophers who
defcrj, or fancy that they defcry, in the page
of Scripture the characleriftical hues of their
own ephemeral fyftems, fo alfo do they ap-
pear to be of that pecuhar fed: which main-
tains, that human fouls are material, that they
are compofed of a genuine corporeal fubftance,
although of one fo refined and fubtle, that
thoufands of them, as it is quaintly but for-
cibly exprefled by a Platonical writer ^ of the

* Dr. Henry More, In his Divine Dialogues.

*' HyL Is it not incredible, Philotheus, if not impofli-
'^ ble, that fome thoufands of fpirits may dance or march
'' on a needle's point at once ?

" Cuph, I, and that booted and fpurred too.". Vol, i.
p. 90.

Having alluded to the Dialogues of this eccentric but
amiable writer, whofe talents as a metaphyfician, philo-
fopher, and divine were doubtlefs highly refpe6lable, but
whofe imagination too frequently outran his judgment.

75

feventeenth century, " can dance booted and
*' fpurred upon a needle's point." But what-
foever may be the creed of thefe Tranflators
upon the particular doftrine of materialifm, it
is certain that they contend for the extinction
of the foul with the body, and for the revivi-
fication of both together at the day of judg-
ment. This opinion they clearly alTert in a
note upon Phil. i. 21. *' For as concerning
*' me, (rather a lingular tranflation of g/^o; y^^,)
*^ to live is Chrift, and to die is gain ; " where
they maintain, that the Apoille does not '^ ex-
^* prefs an expectation of an intermediate ftate
" between death and the refurrecftion," but
fimply reprefents " a quiet reft in the grave, du-
" ring that period, as preferable to a life of fuf-
*^ fering and perfecution."

But it is not my prefent object to oppofe

I cannot avoid dlgreffing a moment from my fubje£l to
notice, that from a paflage in the fame work, viz. the
ftory of the Eremite and the Angel, related p. 321 — 327,
the celebrated '^ Hermit'' of Parnell was evidently bor-
rowed, not merely in the general circumftances of the
narrative, with fome (light deviations indeed, but fome-
times in its very turn of expreffion ; a produ6lion which
I have heard the late Mr. Burke pronounce to be, " a
" Foem without a fault.''

76

their theological fyftem, to purfue them from
one labyrinth of Unitarian expofition to ano-
ther, through all the intricate mazes of meta-
phyfical refinement; yet I cannot help remind-
ing them, that one text at leaft in another
Epiftle of St. Paul, which feems to make di-
recftly againft their pofition, required a little ex-
planation. It is this ; '' We are delirous rather
*^ to be ahfentfrom the body, and to he prefent
^^ with the Lord,'' 2 Cor. v. 8. a declaration
which to common minds appears to imply,
that the " prefence with the Lord'' here fpoken
of muft mean a prefence during the period of
abfence from the body, a period immediately
commencing with death, after the fame man-
ner as it was ftated in the preceding verfe,
** while we are prefent in the body, we are
" abfent from the Lord." This paflage never-
thelefs is fuiFered to pafs without a comment.
While, however, they here abftain from
all explanatory remark, on another occafion
they contrive to preclude the neceffity of it
altogether. The Sadducees are faid to be-
lieve, " that there is no refurredion, nor an-
*' gel, nor fpirit, (jlyitz zovevf^a. Acts xxiii. 8.'*
Now the conjunction f/.yjT6, nor, they have
chofen to tranflate or ; '' the Sadducees fay,

77

" that there is no refurredlon, nor angel, or
** fpirit/* in order to convey the idea of the
word Jpirit being fynonymous with that of
angel, inftead of being intentionally diliin-'
guifhed from it. It is perhaps a lingular coin-
cidence, that the fame tranflation fhould occur
in an anonymous verfion of the New Tefta-
ment, publifhed at an early period in the pre-
ceding century by fome perfon or perfons well
verfed in the art of what the majority then de-'
nominated, and are ftill difpofed to denomi-
nate, the art of unchriftianizing the records of
Chriftianity. I Ihall tranfcribe the animad-
verfion made upon it at the time by the acute
Twells, who volunteered on this, as on other
occafions, the unpleafant duty of expofing ig-
norance and detecting fubterfuge. *^ St. Luke
*' fays," obferves that difcriminating writer,*
*' the Sadducees affirm, that there is no refur-
*' reftion, neither angel, nor Ipirit. Gr. Mvi'h
" ayfsKov f^TjTs wvevf^ca, i. e. they denied the ex-
" iftence of angels and alfo of fouls feparate
" from the body, that is, fpirits. In all which
" they are reprefented to err. But the Tranf-
" lator has a device to keep his reader from
*' feeing that the denial of Ipirits is one of the
^[ errors of Sadducifm, by millranflating ^^yre

78

*' or- inftead of nor. The Sadducees, fays he,
*' maintain there is neither rejiirre6it07i, nor
" angel, or fpirit- So that, according to him,
^^ fpirit was but another name for angel^J'

Neither is this the only palTage upon the
point under confideration, in which both the
Verfions alluded to accord ^. That of the for-
mer period renders sig kh, Adls ii. 2"] , in the
grave, " becaufe thou wilt not leave my foul
" in the grave,'' which is alfo adopted by this
of the prefent day, with the addition of a ftill
wider deviation from the eftablilhed Yerfion, in
tranflating tviv -^vx^iv y^^, my foul, by the pro-
noun me, '' becaufe thou wilt not leave me in
*^ the grave." I indeed admit that '^vx^ is

b " Critical Examination of the late new Text and Ver-
'< fion of the New Teftament," Ed. 173 1. p. 134. But
why all this contrivance to expunge from Scripture a
belief in the exiftence of difembodied fpirits, when our
Saviour himfelf exprefsly afTerts it ? For when his Apo-
flles were terrified at his appearance after his refurreftion,
** and fuppofed that they had feen a fpirit/' he faid to
them, " A fpirit hath not flejh and hones, as ye fee me
" have," Luke xxlv. 39. Are the Unitarians bold enough
to infinuate, that the Apoftles only proved themfelves on
this occafion to be fools, and that our Saviour anfwered
them according to their folly ?

c Ibid. p. 133.

79

often put by fynecdoche for the whole perfon,
as Matthew xii. 18, *' my beloved in whom
" my foul, i. e. I am well pleafed ;" but fo alfo
is the Englifli word foul in the very fame text.
But does it therefore follow, that neither the
Greek nor the Englifli word has any other ap-
propriate meaning ? Surely we mull perceive,
that not the whole, but a peculiar part of man
is diftindly pointed out, when our Saviour fays,
*' Fear not them who kill the body, but cannot
'' kill the foul, ttjv ^^vx^iv/' Matt. x. 1 6. I am alfo
aware that Grotius, in Matt. x. 36. argues for
a reciprocal fenfe of the fubftantive ^vx^, in
conjunction with a pronoun, as a fort of fami-
liar Syriafm ; but the application of his rule in
the inftance alleged is fuccefsfuUy oppofed by
Vorftius ^, nor are other examples of it in the
New Teftament referred to by either Author.
Befides, were it generally admiffible, the gram-
matical connexion of the word in the difputed
text would preclude its influence ; for to fay,
" thou wilt not leave myfelf in the grave,"
would be little better than nonfenfe, and a di-
red: violation of common fyntax. If it be ob-
ferved, that the context will determine the

^ De Ebraiftnis Nov. Teft. p. i. p. 120. 123.

80

fenfe ; this is precifely the point for which I am
contending: for I maintain, that cfJvig cannot
be corredly tranflated the grave, but always
means tlie receptacle of departed fouls, and con-
fequently that -^vxn can only fignify that part
of man to which fuch a receptacle is appro-'
priated. ' In proof of what I aflert, it will be
fufficient perhaps fimply to appeal to Schleuf-
ner. Art. c/Jns, and to Wetftein in Luc. xvi. 23,
whofe " numerous and invaluable notes/' as
the Authors of the New Verfion themfelves'
conceive, *' fupply an inexhaullible fund of
*^ theological and critical information^." Both
fupport their opinion by refpe61able references.
Wetftein obferves generally, ^' Vox Graeca rt,JVf*
" cui refpondet Hebrasa b^^^t:^, et Latina infe-
*^ rorum, denotat ilium locum communem, in
*' quern recipiuntur omnes hominum vita func-
" torum animce, Nunquam vero fignificat aut
*' fepulchrum aut coelum." I rather fufpedl
that thefe Authors had perufed the note of
Wetftein alluded to, becaufe, in their tranfla-
tion of the very text upon which this com-
ment is given, they render k^n^ '' the unfeen
'' fiatey Be this however as it may, I Ihall^

e Introdudion, p. ai.

81

I truft, be excufed if I prefer, in the inftance
before me, the opinion of fuch able critics and
philologiils as Schleufner and Wetftein, fup-
ported by numerous and refpecSable authori-
ties, to that of a whole committee of Unitarian
Tranflators, who either cannot or will not, on
the other fide, adduce any authority whatfo-
ever.

But, on the controverted topic of an inter-
mediate ftate between death and the refurrec-
tion, there exifts a paflage in St. Luke, which,
without a little expofitorj ftraining, or a dif-
avowal of its legitimacy, feems completely at
war with the Unitarian hypothefis. It is Luke
xxiii. 43. '' And Jefus faid to him, Verily I
*' fay unto thee, To-day Ihalt thou be with me
*' in Paradife^." An attempt indeed was made,
at a very early period, by fome who difliked
the dodrine which this text evidently contains,
to get rid of the offenfive pofition by a novel
punctuation. Inftead of putting the comma
before the word (j-vi^s^ov, to-day, they propofed
to place it after it, and then to read, " Verily
^' I fay unto thee this day. Thou flialt be with

*■ Wolfii Curas Philologicae, vol. i. p. 766. Koecheri Ana-
le<9:a, p. 982, and Hackfpan in loc.

G

82

'^ me in Paradife;" a very bungling and unfa-
tisfacftory artifice. It was neverthelefs at one
period adopted bj the Socinians, wbofe Ger-
man tranilation of the New Teftament was
in the verfe under confideration carefully thus
pointed. But fo manifeft a diflocation of fenfe
and language was not hkely to prove long
faflaionable. We therefore find the new Tranf-
lators purfuing a different and a bolder hne of
conduct. They in the firft place endeavour to
explain away its obvious meaning, by remark-
ing, that, when Chrift lays to the penitent ma-
lefadlor, /' To-day thou Ihalt be with me in
*' Paradife," he only meant, ^' in the ftate of
" the vh^tuous dead, who, though in their
^'graves, are alive to God-/' and alfo by re*
ferring to their comment upon Luke xx. 38,
where we arc told, that all live fo God, becaufe
he " regards the futitre refurreftion as if it
" ivere prefenty Will thefe refined reafoners
however permit me to afk them, by what
harfli epithet they would chara6lerize the con-
duct of that man, who fhould announce to
them a bleffing of the firfi: importance as ac-
tually to take place on that very day, which he
at the fame time knew would not happen until
a dijlant period, under the defpicable fubter-

85

fuge, that there is no didindion of time with
God, becaufe '^ one day is with him as a thou-
'' fand years, and a thoufand years as one
''day?" Really, with all their contempt for
ancient and eftabliflied opinion, they mull have
a ftrange conception indeed of the popular in-
telJed, if they can perfuade themfelves, that
this flimfy fort of new f am pjimus will ever fu-
perfede what they may fcornfully contemplate
as the old mumpfimm.

Confcious perhaps of this circumttance, they
then proceed a ftep farther, and boldly propofe
at once the rejedion of the verfe aUogether,
having previoully taken care to mark it in the
text by italics, as one of doubtful authority.
Their ground of fufpicion is thus Hated : '' This
*' verfe," they fay, '' was wanting in the co-
'^ pies of Mardon, and other reputed heretics,
*' and in fome of the older copies in the time
'^ of Origen ; nor is it cited either by Jujiin,
*' Irenccus, or TertulUan, though the two for-
*' mer have quoted almofl every text in Luke
•' which relates to the crucifixion, and Te?^-
^' tullian wrote concerning the inteimediate
''jlater

The firfl: part of their argument, that " the
" verfe was wanting in the copies oi Marcion^

G 2

84

^' and other reputed heretics, and in Ibme of
" the older copies in the time of Origen,'' feems
to have been borrowed from Griefbach, who,
without attempting to diflodge the verfe from
the text, or in any way to mark it as fufpi-
cious, fimply makes the following obfervation;
*' = (the fign of deficiency) Marcion ap.
*' Epiph. Manichcei ap. Chryf Aliqui ap.
*^ Orig."

Upon the illegitimacy of Marcion's Gofpel
I have already been fufficiently difFufe, as well
as upon the inconfiftency of thofe, who, in
order to get rid of fome offenfive, or to fup-
port fome favourite text, at one time admit,
and at another difcard, the authority of that
fpurious production at pleafure. It feems there-
fore only neceflary to refer to what I have
previouily adduced upon this fubjeft ; at the
fame time how^ever reminding them, that
when they attempt to cut out what they may
conceive to be the cancerous excrefcences of
Scripture, if they wifli to prevent a felf injury,
they w ill find it wifdom to abftain from the
double-edged knife of Marcion.

But it feems that the verfe in quefl:ion was
alfo wanting in the copies of " other reputed
** heretics.'' What may be the exad prepon-

85

derance of heretical authority againft the uni-
form teftimony of antiquity in their judgment,
I cannot pretend to determine ; it certainly
feems confiderable ; and yet how is this com-
patible with the importance which they annex
to the laborious collations of Manufcripts, Ver-
fions, and Fathers ? While mofi: men conceive,
that, in proportion to the number of fuch at-
teftations in favour of a particular reading, the
greater appears to be the probability of its ge-
nuinenefs, will they adopt an inverfe mode of
calculation ? Or will they contend, that a
fingle grain of reputed herefy outweighs, in
point of credit, a whole ton of orthodoxy ? And
who are the reputed heretics here alluded to ?
As they have not condefcended to give their
names, we are left to conjedlure. The extracft
however from Griefbach will enable us per-
haps to guefs, that they mean the Manichceans.
But what poffible reafon can be affigned for
fuppreffing the name of thefe heretics ? I can-
not fuppofe that they had examined the au-
thority of Griefbach; and, finding him in-
accurate in his ftatement, yet ftill refolving
to take the chance of heretical fiifpicion, pre-
ferred the uncertainty of a general allufion
to the precifion of a particular defcription of
perfons, by way of avoiding the probability

G 3

86

of detecftion. They rather perhaps adopt^^
the mode in quellion, becaufe they appre-
hended that the very term Manichceans, to
the credit of whofe fuppofed copies an appeal
muft have been made, might have produced in
the reader's mind an inconvenient affbciation
of ideas. That however which I do not af-
cribe to them, a ditlruft in the accuracy of
Griefbach, I confider myfelf as a fufficient
ground for rejecting this part of the tellimony
altogether. •

To the exertions of that laborious critic
biblical literature, I am fully convinced, is
highly indebted; nor do I hefitate to join with
them in denominating his edition of the New
Teftament a work *' of unrivalled excellence
" and importance," and in regarding it as not
the lead of his merits, that he contrived '* to
'^ comprefs a great mafs of critical information
** into as narrow a compafs as poffible, in
" order to bring it within the reach of thofe,
" who could not afford either the time, the
*' labour, or the expenfe, which would be ne-
'* ceffary to colledl it from thofe numerous and
*' expenfive volumes in which it was difFufeds.'*
At the fame time, however, I hold it requifite

% Introduftion, p. 24.

^7

not to take too much from any critic upon
trull, particularly from one, whofe great merit
confifts in the compreffion of more bulky ma-
terials. Compreffion, we know, neceffarily in-
cludes fome fort of omiffion, and omiffions too
often give rife to erroneous conceptions. Be-
fides, may not the very compreiTor, by too
hailily adopting a general concluHon, without
fufficiently examining the particular premifes,
occafionally err himfelf, and confequently mif-
lead others ? This, I contend, is precifely the
cafe with Griefbach, in the text under confidera-
tion. Griefbach, in the Ihort note given above,
manifeftly borrows from Wetftein, intending to
give the lame references as that critic, but to
fupprefs the quotations themfelves. Wetllein
ftates, that this verfe was wanting in Marcion's
Gofpel according to Epiphanius, and to Origea
on John, p. 421. '' — (Wetilein's fign of defi-
*' ciency,) Marcion ap. Epiphanium, et Ori-
^' genem in Job. p. 42 1 ,'* and quotes the paflage
from Origen. He then adds, without any lign
prefixed, '' Chryfoflomus T. V. 7. Of Mctvix'^ioi

'' €7riXctSof>t,SVOl T^ TOTTk^ TUTU ^CiTlVy etTTSV KvpiOf, OLfX^V

** K, T. A. ii/C8v ctVTi^o(rif vj^y] ysyovs tcov ctyaB'cov, zai

" UK ety ciTTSV (T'/ii^e^ov k. t. A. otAA' sv too KsCiP£ti Tr^g (rvv-

G 4

88

fiein meant to affirm, that the Manichseans, ac-
cording to Chrjfofiom, denied the vahdity of
the text, or fimply to remark that they particu-
larly noted it, I will not pretend to determine.
It feems certain, however, that Griefbach con-
ceived him to have the form.er object in view,
and therefore obferved, that the verfe was re-
jeded by the Marcionites according to Epipha-
nius, and by the Manichceans according to Chry-
fojiorriy without ever reading, or, if he read,
without underllanding, the paflage in Chry-
follom alluded to: for, had he correcSly under-
liood it, he would have found the very reverfe
of w^hat he ftates to have been the fad. As
the corredion of an error in Grielbach may be
deemed a point of fome importance, I fliall give
the whole extract in difpute, which feems to
have been taken from the profefled writings of
the Manichsans, in the words of Chryfoftom
himfelf : Ovroi {ol Mctvixaict) roivw 27rtXccQof4,&voi tov

pov fjLer sf/^sv ea-v\ ev tco tsapct^sicrcd' oukcvv avtioqo-i^ tiovi
ypyovs Tcov cfjycL^oav, Kcti zsePiTlyj yj civcL^ctTig' ei ycL^ sv
eKetr/i rv) jj^gp^ ctTreXctZsv 6 ?\.y}^r,s- tol ccyA^A, to ^s o-ojficc
st,vTQ'j ovyc avi^yj ovSeTTCi}, Kcti Ty}fyt>€Poy, ovk B'Tcci (TCt^fjCctTuv
^oiTToy avcL^As-i^, upa, epofjcrars to Mx^^v, rj oevrspov

S9

0LVT6 tSctXiv siTTSiv ctvciyKY( ', ct/Lcriv, ctfA^Yiv Xiyco trot, (r*j/^s^
fiov fJLiT SfjLH B(n\ €v TO) T^dfidi^^eKraf. eia-yjAS-sv av, ^Tjtnv,
SIS Tov taapu^eiTov o Xyj^yjf ov fA,STct, tcv a-oofXdTog, ttcos-

y<l9, OTTOTS i^K. STuOyi TO (TCOfJLCL CLVTOV , CV^S ^ISXvS-yi, iCClt

Kcm eyeysTo ; kch i^^ajLc^ si^yjTcti, on oLveq-yiTSV o Xpi^os
etvTov. « ^€ cicrv\ycLyz tov Atj^yiv, Kcct X0091? ra (rct}{JLciTos
eLTnjXctvas rcov ctyccS'uv, svSviAov on (tcoi^clto^ ovk s^ii/
avAcrcto-is' « yap v\y o-oofj^ctjos uvoLCi-ctms, an ctv httv (tvi^
fjLSpQV fjt^ST e/L^ov sa-'/i ev too 7rcLpcL^et(Tco, ctAA' sv to) Kutpco
ruvTsAeids, orctv coofjLctTcov civoL<rci(ri$- v\, « Jk J/Jf eta-^jyccye
tov Aij^yjVy TO Jg (TM/^ct uvTH (pS-u^ev Sf^avsv s^ct), wSriXov
OTi a-ui^oLTcov cLVct<Tcx/ns hk s^t. TctvTct SKSivoi ^. Such

^ Chryfoftomi Opera, vol. iv. p. 680. Ed. Montfaucon,
Paris. 1 72 1. Art. Sermo in Genefim. 7. The following is
the tranflation of Montfaucon : ^^ Ifle locum hunc arri-
^ pientes aiunt : Dixit Chriftus, ^ Amen, amen, dico tibi,
^' hodie mecum eris in paradifo.* Igitur jam fa6la eft bo-
*^ normn retributio, et fuperflua erit refurre6lio. Si enim
** illo die latro bona recepit, corpus autem ejus nondum
*' ad hunc ufque diem refurrexit, non erit deinceps corpo-
*^ rum refurreftio. Numquid intellexiftis, quod diximus,
*' an vero iterum illud dici necefte eft ? ^ Amen, amen, dico
^^ tibi, hodie mecum eris in paradifo.* Ingreflus eft igitur,
" inquit, in paradifum latro non cum corpore. Quo enim
^^ pafto cum fepultum non eflet corpus ejus, neque diflb-
*^ lutum, et in cineres redadum ? Neque di6lum ufquam
" fuit, refufcitatum ilium a Chrifto fuifte. Quod ft latro-
" nem introduxit, et abfque corpore bonis potitus eft, ma-
^' nifeftum eft corporis refurre6iionem non efle. Nam fi
" corporis effet refurre£lio^ non dixiflet, ^ Hodie mecum

90

then was the argument of the Manicha*ans ;
from which it appears, that, inftead of rejecting
this text, they highly appreciated it, and even
grounded upon it a fovourite docSrine, that
there would be no refurre6lion of the hodij^
but that, when we died, every thing material
in our nature periihed everlailingly. In fur-
ther proof alfo that this feci acknowledged its
legitimacy, I might refer to a paff^ge in Au-
gullin, in which Fauftus the Manichasan is
thus introduced exprefsly quoting it : ** Neque
" enim quia et latronem quendam de cruce li-
** beravit idem nofler Dominus, et ipfo codem
** die fecum fatiirum divif eum in paradifo pa^.
" iris fid, cjuifquam inviderit, aut inhumanus
'' adeo efle poted, ut hoc ei difpliceat tantas
*' benignitatis ofEcium. Sed tamen non idcirco

*' ens in paradlfo,* fed in tempore confuinmationis, quando
" refurreftio corporum erit. Quod fi jam latronem in-
'' troduxit, corpus autem ejus foris corruptum remanfit,
" plane livquet corporum refurrectionem non efle. Atque
*^ haec quidem illi."

How widely thefe reputed heretics differed in opinion
from the Unitarians ! The Manichaians believed that the
foul furvived the body, and that the body died never to
exift again. The Unitarians maintain the reverfe of both
proportions. For an account of the diftin6lion between
paradife and heaven, fee Wetftein's note on this text.

91

*' dicimus et latronum vitas ac mores nobis pro-
'' babiles effe debere, quia Jefus latroni indul-
'' gentium dederit ^'*

It is evident therefore that Griefbach com-
pletely mifreprefents the fa6l, when he ailerts,
that the Manichceans dilbwned the verfe in quef-
tion. Whether, glancing his eye curlbrily over
the partial quotation of Wetliein, and forgetting
the tenets of the fedl, he conceived that the
Manichaeans difclaimed the verfe altogether,
becaufe it feemed inconliiient M^ith the docr
trine of a corporeal refurredion, or v^hether
he fpared himfclf the trouble of confidering
the quotation at all, is not very important. It
is certain that he erred, drawing into the vor-
tex of his error writers, who repofe an implicit
confidence in the accuracy of his Itatements.

But to proceed ; we are alfo told, that this
verfe was wanting '' in fome of the older co-
*^ pies in the time of Origen." Is not this
however advancing one ftep, at leaft, further
than the pofition of Griefbach, who only re-
marks, that fome perfons rejeded it according
to Origen, Aliqui apud Originem ? Upon what
ground then rells the alTertion, not that fo7ne

» Contra Fauftum ManichEEum, vol. vi. lib. xxxiii. p. 490.
Ed. 1569.

92

perfons difowned it, but that it was wanting
in fome of the older copies, in the time of that
Father? And does not Griefbach too go a little
beyond his predeceflbr Wetftein, in reprefent-
ing the aliquiy the foijie perfons alluded to by
Origen, as diftinft from the Marciointes fpoken
of by Epiphanius? The words of Wetftein are
thefe: *' — Marcion apud Epiphanium et Orige-
" nem in Joh. p. 421." Surely the rejedion
here noted, upon the tellimony of Epiphanius
and Origen, is precifely one and the fame; viz.
that by Marcion, and not by two different feds.
Kor is this all. As the new Tranflators mif-
conceive Griefbach, and Griefbach mifcon-
ceives Wetllein, fo Wetflein alfo mifconceives
Origen, and makes for him a declaration which
he never meant. The aflertion of Origen, fo
ftrangely miflaken, is comprifed in the follow-
ing fliort extraft from his Commentary on
John, as given by Wetflein himfelf: Ovtc^ ^s

STetpctPe TlVCtf Ug CtTVf^(pCt)VOV to eiP7]fA,gV0V, aO^rS TOXfJLYiO-Cti

etvTOVS vTrovoyjo'Ai, Troo^sdrjS-cci rca YAJctyhXiCt) cltto tivov

ici^tapy^V OLVTO TO, CrVJI^B^OV fJLiT e(JLii flT'yJ iV TO) TTCt^A^eta-O)

ra Gsa^. As the fame paffage is quoted by

^ " Sic autem perturbavit hoc didum nonnullos, ceu
*^ abfonum, ut fufpicari aufi fuerint haec verba, hodie me-

93

Lardner, I will fubjoin his Engliih tranflation,
rather inelegant indeed, but fufficientlj correct:.
" This faying has fo difturbed fome people,
*' as appearing to them abfurd, that they have
*' ventured to Jirfped that it has been added
" by fome that corrupt the Gofpels : To-day
"J/ialt thou be luith me in the paradife of
" GodK''

Now there is certainly nothing in Origen,
either antecedent or fubfequent to this paflage,
from which it can be inferred, that he had the
Marcionites in his eye. Nor does he fay that
any feft or feds whatfoever repudiated the
Verfe in queftion ; but limgly, that fome per-
fons were fo dijlurbed at what appeared to
them its abfurdity, that they dared (roXfifiu-cLi)
to fufped it as an interpolation. Surely the
diftindion muft be obvious between the po-
fition oi fufpeBwg, and that of avoiuing, its
illegitimacy ; fo that Wetftein was clearly in-
accurate, not only in fixing the allufion upon
the Marcionites, but alfo in reprefenting, as a
direct repudiation, what w^as at moll but a

'' cum eris in paradijb Dei, addita fuiffe Evangelio ab ali-
" quibus illud adulterantibus/' Opera, v. ii. p. 421. Ed.
Huetiii

1 Credibility, vol. iii. part ii, p. 375. Ed. 1738.

P4

daring fufpidon. To fufpect a text which
mav be diiliked, is certainly not new, cither on
the Heterodox or the Orthodox tide of a quef-
tion. To fufpecl it however is one thing, and
to difclaim it another; nor will the 'Unitarians,
I f)refume, difpute the difference, when they
recoiled:, that fome Trinitarians have lufpefled
the authenticity of the words, ^^ neither the
'' Son,'' in Mark xiii. 32. where it is faid, " Of
*' that day and that hour know^eth no man, no
*' not the angels which are in heaven, neither
*' the Son, but the Father." Can it be hence
argued, that certain Trinitarians have rejeded
them ? And if it could, would even this be
deemed a circumftance fufficiently important
to be recorded in difparagement of their vali-
dity ? I rather think it would not ; becaufe a
much ftronger evidence has indeed been ad-
duced againll: them, which is not permitted to
throw the flighted: fliade of doubt upon their
authenticity. The Tranflators themfelves re-
mark, ^* Ambrofe cites inanifjcripts which omit
** this claufe"^, and complains that it was in-

ni The words of Ambrofe are, " Veteres codices Grasci
*' non habent, quod nee JH'ms felt. Sed non mirum, fi et
" hoc falfarunt, qui Scripturas interpolavere divinas." De
Fide, lib. v. c. 7. IIow are the older copies, the veteres co-

95

•' trocluced by the Arians. But all manufcripts
*' and vernons now extant retain it, and it is
** cited by early writers." It is by no n:eans
my intention to invalidate this favourite claufe
of the Unitarians ; but I will venture to afk,
upon what principle can it be confiftently
maintained, that the omiffion of this claufe in
fome ancient Greek manufcripts of St. Mark's
Gofpel, alluded to by Amhroje, is not to be
contidered as at leaft of equal weight with the
omiffion of the two firfl; chapters of St. Mat^
thew in the Gofpel of the Ebionites, or of
the two firil chapters of St. Luke in the Gof^
pel of the Marcionites, alluded to by Epiplia^
nius ; admitting that all manufcripts and ver-
sions now extant, as well as all citations of
early writers, retain the refpecftive paiTages in
the contemplation of both ?

On the whole, if Wetll:ein and Griefbach
err in giving the fenfe of Origen, the Tranfla-
tors of the New Yerfion deviate ftiil more
widely, when they reprefent him as ftating the
controverted verfe to have been wanting in

dices, here exprefsly referred to by Amhrofe, of fuch con-
temptible authority in comparifon with the older copies
fuppofed to be, but eertainly not, referred to by Origen s*

96

feme of the older copies in his time* Had
they confulted on the occafion an authority
which they highly refped:, that of Lardner,
they would not have fallen into fo grofs a
blunder, as they would have found- his deduc-
tion from the fame paflage of Origen precifely
oppofite to their own. Lardner obferves; *' It
*' may be concluded from what Origen fays,
*' that thefe words were in all copies ; and
^' that they who objected againft them had no
" copy to allege in fupport of their fufpicion,
'' but only the abfurdity of the thing itfelf in
*' their opinion. For that is all that Origen
'' mentions "." Leaving them however to di-
geft the pofition of Lardner, in flat contradic-
tion to their own, as they can, I fliall conclude
this long difcuiTion with a fliort remark upon
the fingularity, that fuch diftind: refults fhould
be deduced from the fame premifes. The
Tranilators of the New Verfion confider Origen
as aflerting, that the verfe in difpute was want-
ing in fome of the older copies in his time ;
Griefbach, that fome perfons, (aliqui,) not the
Marcionites, repudiated it; and Wetftein, that
it was repudiated by the Marcionites. Now

n Credibility, ut fupra.

97

it is remarkable, that in thefe refpedive llate-
ments each Ihould differ from the other, and
all materially from the very author, on whofe
fole teftimony they rely. To what, except to
the moft culpable negligence, can we impute
this llrange perverfity ?

I have been the more particular in my no-
tice of this and the preceding point, not in
order to create an invidious dillrufl: of critics
fo jullly dillinguiflied as Wetftein and Grief-
bach, but to prove the neceffity of carefully
examining ourfelves the authorities cited by
them, before we prefume privately to quef-
tion, much more, publicly to arraign, the au-
thenticity of any text whatfoever. And this
neceffity, I truft, has been fufficiently proved
to thofe, whofe only obje6l is the fimple invef-
tigation of truth.

Having endeavoured to demonftrate, that
the firfl: part of the Unitarian argument for
the rejeftion of Luke xxiii. 43. refts on no
folid foundation, I come now to confider the
fecond part of it.

This verfe then, we mull obferve, is to be
found in all the manufcripts as well as verjions
extant, and is quoted by Fathers iimumerable ;
but it is not cited, it feems, by one or two

H

98

early Fathers, and therefore doubts are to be.
entertained of its legitimacy. *' It is not
*'' cited/' we are told, *' by Jujliiiy Irenceus, or
*' Tertulliany though the two former have
*' quoted almofl: every text in Luke which re-
** lates to the crucifixion, and TertuUian wTote
*^ concerning the intermediate ftate."

Before I proceed to the particulars of thefe
confident affertions, may I be permitted to alk,
if the writers alluded to had really quoted the
paiTage in difpute, whether that circumfl;ance
would have been admitted as conclufive upon
the point of its authenticity ? The queftion, I
conceive, mull be anfwered in the negative;
for all three ° have difl:ind:]y quoted texts from
the firft and fecond chapters of St. Matthew^
and from the firft and fecond chapters of St.
Luke : yet we find that the Unitarians perfift
in marking for rejeftion thofe very portions of
both Evangelifts. They will not furely main-

o Juftin. in Dialog, cum Tryphone, Ed. Paris 16^6* p.
303, 304. and in Apol. ii. p. "j^ j Irenseus, lib. iii. c. 18.
Ed. Grabe, p. 239. and lib. iii. c« 11. p. 214 ^ and Tertul-
lian in Arg. adverfas Judaeos Ed. Rigalt. Paris 1664. p.
193. and De Came Chrifti, p. 321. Nor are thefe the
only places where the dilputed chapters are referred t^
by the lame writers*

99

tain, that the direct teftimony of an early
writer is to be confidered as of no decifive
weight in favour of the received text, although
his lilence may be conftrued into fufficient evi-
dence againft it ?

But I may be told, that they object not to
admit the tellimony of thefe writers upon
points folely connected with the generally re-
ceived copies of St. Matthew and St. Luke,
when it is uncontradicted in the firft inftance
by the Gofpel of the Ebionites, and in the fe-
cond by that of the Marcionites ; Gofpels of
higher reputation than the common copies, be-
caufe of more remote antiquity. Shew us, they
may fay, a text quoted by either of thefe wri-
ters, which is omitted in manufcripts of a more
recent date, and is not difcredited by the frag-
ments above alluded to, and we will inftantly
acknowledge its validity. I might obferve in
reply, that the difputed chapters of St. Mat-
thew and St. Luke, even upon the very ground
of antiquity alleged, ought to be deemed ge-
nuine, becaufe they are referred to by writers,
who, living in the feco?id century, quoted from
copies which muft have been more ancient
than the fuppofed copies of the Ebionites and
of the Marcionites, from which Epiphanius

H 2

loo

quoted, who lived in the fourth century. But,
to meet every poffible objeffion, I will bring
forw^ard an inftance, in which only copies of
the fame precife nature are concerned.

In Luke xxii. verfes 43, 44. are printed in
italics as of dubious authority, and we are told
in a note, that *' thefe verfes are wanting in
** the Vatican, the Alexandrian, and other ma-
" nufcripts,*' (it fliould have been ftated, in
three other manufcripts of the fame clafs with
the Vatican, and neither of them of any higher
antiquity than the eleventh or twelfth centu-
yiesP,) '' and are marked as doubtful in fome
*' in which they are inferted." Now admitting
all this in its fulleft extent, ftill I apprehend it
muft follow, that the verfes are neverthelefs
genuine, if they are clearly cited by writers
who could only have been converfant with
manufcripts which were long prior in date to

P It fliould likewife have been added, that in the frji
of the three, the commencement of thefe verfes, wfdij 8e, is
notvvithftanding written by the fame hand which origi-
nally tranfcribed the IMSS. the remainder being fupplied
by another and more recent hand in the margin ; and that
in the fecond, although the verfes are evidently wanting
here, they yet occur in another Gofpel, viz. after Mat-
thcvv- xxvi. 59. See Griefbach.

101

the Vatican and Alexandrian, or indeed any
others. And they are certainly cited both by
Juffin and Irenaeus. That they were acknow-
ledged by Juftin, Irenasus, and many later fa-
thers, Griefbach might have informed them ^,
had they been difpofed to confider both fides
of the evidence, although he would not have
referred them to the particular paflages. Juf-
tm remarks : Ei/ yatp toi^ cLTrofj.wifjLovsvfjLctTiv y k (pii/^t

CUVTCOV (TVVTSTdxB'CLl, OTl l^^Ct)f CtXTSl B'^OfJiQci }COLT€X^LT0

avTH Bvxof^sv^ yccci Xeyovrof, TrapeX^eTCt), et ^watov, to
TTor/i^iov TiiTo. '^ Nam in libris, qui funt ab ejus
*' difcipulis, ipforumque feftatoribus compofiti,
" memoriae mandatum e{t,Jhdorem ipjiiis tarn-
" qiiam guttas fajigmnis defluxijje in terrain,
'' eo deprecante et dicente, Tranfeat, Ji fieri
*^ potejl, poculwn Jioc^ Dial, cum Tryphone
in Oper. p. 331. So alfo Irenccus : — -a^' ctv
€aotx,^u(rsv stti m AaZci^^' aS' av l^^cdTS S'POfu,^^^ ctlfjiATo^
'' — nec lacrymaflet fuper Lazarum ntcfudaf-
*' fet glohos fangidnisy lib. iii. c. 32. p. 260.
Since therefore the Gofpel of Marcion is not
recorded to have omitted thefe verfes, and as

q Agnofcunt Juftin, Hippol. Epiph. Chryf. Tit. boftr.
Csefarius, Iren. Hier.

H 3

102

they are exprefsly cited by fuch early writers
as Juftin and Irenaeus, how is it that they are
marked for excifion upon the fole authority of
manufcripts confefledly written at a later pe-
riod ?

But to return to the principal text in con-
troverly : we may furely admit that it is not
quoted by Juftin, Irenaeus, or Tertullian, with-
out at all impeaching its authenticity ; for if
no texts are to be deemed genuine, upon which
thefe Fathers are wholly filent, many of con-
iiderable importance in the judgment of dif-
ferent parties muft be expunged from the ca-
non of Scripture. Aware perhaps of this, the
Tranflators attempt to affign a particular rea-
fon, why lilence on this occafion is to be ne-
ceffarily conftrued into ignorance. They fay,
that the omiffion is the more remarkable, be-
caufe *' the tiuo former have quoted aim oft
^' every text in Luke which relates to the cru-
" cifixion, and Tertiilliaii wTote concerning
'* the intermediate ftate." But are thefe afler-
tions true ? The firft moft certainly is not; nor
is the laft in that fenfe in w^hich alone it can
bear upon the argument. Juftin is fo far from
quoting every text in St. Luke which relates
to the crucifixion, that from the whole of this

105

twenty-third chapter, confifting of fifty-fix
verfes upon the fubjed, I have been able to
difcover only one (the 46th '') which is clearly
cited by him. I allude of courfe to his ge-
nuine writings, and not to others incorrciftly
imputed to him ; for if the latter are to be
brought forward, we fhall find perhaps two
more verfes quoted % but one of thefe will be
the very verfe in quejlion, Irenaeus alfo, it is
remarkable, refers but once to the fame chap-
ter, and that is to the 34th verfe ^ As to Ter-
tullian, he certainly wrote a difl;ind: treatife
upon the intermediate fl:ate, or rather, upon
the fubjeft of Paradife ; for he himfelf thus
exprefsly informs us : '' Habes etiam de para-
*' difo a nobis libellum, quo conllituimus om-
*^ nem animam apud inferos fequeftrari in
" diem Domini^:" but the Tranflators forget
to add, (a little circumftance of fome import-
ance to the quefl:ion,) that this treatife is not
now extant. What therefore it might, or
might not, have contained in the way of quo-

^ Dial, cum Trypbone In Oper. p. 333.
s Viz. V. 34. and v. 43. Quaefliones et Refpon. ad Or-,
thod. in Operibus, p. 463, and p. 437.
' Lib. iii. c. 20. p. 247.
*^ Opera, p. 304.

H4

104

tation, it muft be as ufelefs to conjedure, as It
is abfurd to urge.

The only general reflexion which I Ihall
make upon this Angular tiflue of llrange mif-
conceptions, and ftranger mifreprefehtations,
is this ; that, if their metaphyfical arguments
upon the nature of the human foul, and its
lleep after death, be founded upon no*better
reafoning than that which is here exhibited to
difcredit a pafllige of Scripture countenancing
an oppofite docftrine, the philofopher muft de-
fpife, and the critic deride them.

105

1 i

CHAP. V.

Perplexing Anomalies in the Theory of
Articles.

Hitherto I have confidered the attempts
of thefe Tranflators to get rid of particular paf-
fages of Scripture which cannot well be ex-
plained in conformity with their own Creed,
by difcarding them as unauthentic. I come
now to notice another exercife of their inge-
nuity, by which, for fimilar theological pur-
pofes, they give to certain undifputed texts
meanings diredlly the reverfe of thofe which
are ufually affixed to them. With this view
they render (dso^ viv o Aoyog, John i. 1. '' the
*' Word was a God;'' and iavTov Tlov th Qsi^ sttoi^
yia-ev, John xix. 7. '' made himfelf a Son of God;'*
contemplating the infertion of the Englifli in-
^ definite, as neceflarily refulting from the omif-
fion of the Greek definite. Article. Their ob-
jed, both here and in other inftances of the
fame kind, clearly is to divefi our Saviour of
€very claim to divinity which a peculiar title

icy5

might be fuppofed to give him, and to repre-
fent him not as God, or as the Son of God em-
phatically, but as a God, or a Son of God me-
taphorically. The rule indeed, which they
have thus adopted, is not properly their own ;
it was originally a fruit of Arian growth : but,
not being fuited to the general tafte, it hung
for a time mellowing and neglected. As the
Unitarians however feem difpofed, if poffible,
to eftablilh its credit, let us examine a little its
pretenfions to public approbation.

If it be really the produce of found criti-
cifm, and not of mere theological conceit, it
muft not only appear corred: in one or two fo-
litary inftances, but prove of general apphca-
tion. Upon this principle let us try it.

In the laft claufe then of John i. l. Bsog f\v
Aoyof is rendered, as I have obferved, '' the
" Word was a God/' becaufe the article o is
hot annexed to 0go?. But why do not thefe
Tranflators, for the fame reafon, alfo render sv
eifix^ y}v Aoycf, in the firft claufe of the verfe,
*' in a beginning," that is, at fome indefinite
commencement, " was the Word," inftead of
'' in tJie beginning," in conformity with the
common tranflation ? The true caufe perhaps
it is eafy to conjedure. This would com-

107

pletely militate againll the only fenfe in M^hich
they will allow the expreffion to be taken ;
the words '^ in the beginning" meaning, as
they choofe to fay after Socinus, '^ from the
*^ commencement of the Gofpel difpenfation,
" or of the miniftry of Chrift."

But, concealing the fecret motive, they may
urge in their defence, that the phrafe '^ in a
*' beginning*' would be an obfcure fort of ex-
preffion, while the other, " a God," is fuffi-
ciently intelligible. This is true ; but it only
ferves to Ihew, at the very outfet, the general
inapplicabiUty of their favourite rule. That
the phrafe '' a God" is fufficiently intelligible
cannot indeed be difputed ; yet may the rule
itfelf be juftly controverted, which uniformly
fupplies the abfence of the Greek Article by
the Englifh indefinite Article. For if we pro-
ceed with a confiftent tranflation of the fame
word ©fof, in the fame chapter of St. John, w^e
fhall find it necefl^ary either immediately to
abandon the rule altogether, or to reprefent
the Evangelill as efl:abliihing a plurality of
Gods. When, fot example, in v. 6. it is faid,
*' there was a man fent from God, 'usance 0£^,"
if we tranflate this '' from a God ;" when alfo
in V. 13. the faithful are defcribed as children

108

of God, re>cm Osy, if we tranflate this " children
*' of a Godj'' and when in v. 18. it is affirmed,
that '' no man has at any time feen God, Osov,"
if we render this too " a God," fhall we not
introduce the Evangelift as countenancing the
opinion, that there are more Gods than one?
To avoid fo manifeil an abfurdity, as well as
impiety, we here find the Unitarians departing
from their own principle, and tranflating Oeo^,
in all thefe inftances, God, without an Article.
Is not this a fpecimen of polemical legerde-
main rather than of rational criticifm, which
conjures up a little convenient Article for a
particular deception, and then inftantly, in a
fubfequent difplay of fKill, commands its ab-
fence ?

To what fubterfuge can they fly in order
to efcape the imputation of inferring a plu-
rality of gods } A is an article which evi-
dently relates to number, as the French tin.
And thus perhaps they themfelves intend it
fhould be taken, when they put into the
mouth of the Centurion the words, *' Truly this
'' was a fon of a God ;'* Matt, xxvii. 54. be-
caufe the Centurion may be fuppofed to have
been an heathen. But how will they explain,
confiftently with the dodrine of the Divine

109

Unity, the following declaration, which they
afcribe to our Saviour; *' God is not a God of
'' the dead, but of the living ?" Matt. xxii. 32.
Were we correctly to exprefs the propolition,
that the Gentiles, and not the Jews, acknow-
ledge the melTiahfliip of our blefled Lord, in-
Itead of faying, that Chrift is not a Chrift,
fliould we not rather fay, that Chrift is not the
Chrill of the Jews, but of the Gentiles ? Or,
to ufe a more familiar illuilration, were we,
when alluding to the hands in which the fo-
vereignty of this kingdom is lodged, to de-
fcribe an exalted individual, not as '' the,'' but
as *' a King of England," would it not imply,
that England is governed by more kings than
one ? It is impoffible however for a moment
to fuppofe, that they meail to infinuate a poly-
theifm abhorrent from their creed, particularly
when we refled, that their creed uniformly
rules the text, and not the text their creed.

Had they indeed purfued their own rule, as
confiflency required, in every inftance, nu-
merous abfurdities would have arifen, againft
which common fenfe muft: have inftantly re-
volted. I fliall inftance one out of many. Our
Saviour fays, in reply to the Tempter, " It is
'' written ; Man fliall not live by bread alone.

no

^' but by every word which proceedeth from
*' the mouth of God, Slcl ^ofA.ccTo^ Qea/' Matt. iv.
4. Now thefe words, upon the principle of
fupplying our Article a, whenever the Greek
Article is omitted, fliould have been tranllated,
*' from a mouth of a God;'* a phrafe which
would have implied, not only that there are
more gods than one, but that every god has
more mouths than one ; and thus would they
have reprefented our bleffed Saviour as teach-
ing a polytheifm, not lefs wild and grofs than
the polytheifm of India.

If I am afked, " What line then would you
^' purfue ? Would you, when you tranflate a
*' Greek noun without the Article, reject the
*' ufe of the Englifh Article a, and admit that
*' of the Englifli Article the, or would you
*' tranflate it in Englifli, as in Greek, without
^' any Article at all ?'* My anfwer is, that in
every inftance of the kind, we fhould commit
ourfelves to the guidance, not of a fuppofed
infallible canon, but of common fenfe and the
context. On different occafions different modes
of tranflation mull: be adopted : and infiances^
may be quoted in which all three modes occur
in the fame paffage. Thus, Zysvero uvB-^cotto^-
etTre^uXl^evo^ ttcc^cc Qen* ovof^u, ctvTca Icoccn*}^, John i.

Ill

6, when fully and correftly rendered, will be,
" There was a man fent from God\ the name
'* of whom (or the name to him) was John.'*
Is it poffible for any Tranflator, how much
foever influenced by a bigoted attachment to
felf opinion, and by a fond affectation of lin-
gular theory, to contend, that the words avS-^a^
TTog, Qeof, and ovo^^t, in this verfe, all without the
Article, are all to be tranflated in one and the
fame way ?

But it may perhaps be faid, if fuch uncer-
tainty exifls on thefe occalions^ how are we to
afcertain the precife import of a Greek noun
fo circumftanced ? This quefiion however is
eafily anfwered by aiking another. How do we
afcertain the precife import of a Latin noun
under fimilar circumftances ? The Latin noun,
it is plain, muft be ufed, not occafionally, but
always, without an Article, becaufe the Latia
language has none ; yet we contrive to fettle
what we conceive to be its genuine fenfe in all
cafes, without ftumbling upon any difficulty of
this defcription. Why fhould more perplexity
arife in the Greek language ?

Whatfoever pointed peculiarity of meaning
the prefence of the Greek Article may be fup-
pofed fometimes to indicate, no uniform ana-

112

logy of conltrudlion, I prefume, can be argued
from its abfence. Its ellipfes are perpetual ; and
a thoufand inftances may be adduced, in which
neither its omiffion, nor its addition, appears
to create the flighteft difference.' It is not
however my intention, nor does the fubjed re-
quire me, to enter into an elaborate difcuffion
upon its philological importance or inllgnifi-
cance. Nothing perhaps is more difficult than
to define the exa(3: nature and legitimate ufe
of Articles in a living language, as they fre-
quently give birth to anomalies which depend
upon an ufage, bidding defiance to the fliackles
of fyftem. And if this be the cafe in a living
language, in a dead one the difficulty muft be
incalculably augmented. I fliall neverthelefs
venture to confider a little more minutely, yet
as briefly as I can, the quefl:ion of the corre-
fpondence between the Englifh and Greek
modes of expreffing nouns, in order to point
out the impoffibility of refl;ri(3:ing that corre-
fpondence by any rule or rules univerfally ap-
plicable.

In Englifh there are evidently three diftind
modes of expreffing nouns ; one, without an
Article, ahjhlutely ; another, with the Article a,
which refers to number, indefinitely ; and a.

113

third, with the Article the, definitely. An in-
fiance of all three modes occurs in the ufe of the
word light ; of the firft, when God faid, " Let
" there be light J' Gen. i. 3 ; of the fecond, when
the Meffiah is declared to be *' a light to
*' lighten the Gentiles/' Luke ii. 32 ; and of the
third, when our Saviour terms himfelf " the
*' light of the world," John viii. 1 2. So alfo the
word Ji?i in the following paflages : " All un-*-
" righteoufnefs isjzn/' John v. 1 7 ; *' There is a
** fin unto death," ib. l6; *' Rebellion is as the
'^ fin of witchcraft," 1 Sam. xv. 23. Few nouns
however admit the three modes; mofi: only
the two latter ; and fome the laft alone; as the
noun ^fiiJi, which is always denominated the
fun ; for although it may be fometimes ufed
with the Article a prefixed, yet it can then
only be taken hypothetically with reference to
other funs, which we conceive to exift in the
boundlefs expa nfe of creation.

If we fancy that in this diverfity we fiiill
perceive fomething of invariable fyfl:em, that
fancy, as we proceed, muft foon forfake us,
when we turn to the perplexing anomalies in-
troduced by the caprice of ufage. A man, for
inftance, and a horfe, are both indeed to be
conlidered as belonging to one genus, viz. ani-

X

114

nial ; jet we ufe the word man abfolutelj, in
order to denote the fpecies, as " God made
*^ man,'' while it would be incorreft to ufe the
other word in the fame manner. How too
fliall we account for the following peculiarities?
We never fay a thunder, but always thunder ;
while, on the contrary, we never fay hurricane,
but always an hurricane; fo that of two nouns
apparently fimilar, one is found to be deficient
in the fecond, and the other in the firft mode
of expreffion.

An ellipfis likewife of the Article the fre^-
quently occurs, for which we can feldom af-
fign a fatisfadlory reafon. We may indeed
fometimes attribute it to colloquial brevity, as
when " the houfe top" is ufed for the top of
the houfe, and when '' horfe-hair' is ufed for
the hair of the horfe : but how fhall we ac-
acount for it on more important occafions, a^
when earth is put for the earth which we in-
habit, and not for the mere element fo deno-
minated ? For although we cannot in the fenfe
alluded to corredly term God the Creator of
earth, yet may we term him the Creator of
heaven and earth-, and we alfo daily pray, that
his will may be done in ov on earth. Upon
what principle is this variety to be explained ?

115

/ And, if no happy tvvift of logical dexterity
can wreath ftragglers of this nature into the
fantaftical chaplet of our fjHem, what fuccefs
can we promife ourfelves with others ftill more
rambling and pcrverfe ? We apply, for example,
the terms heaven and fiy fvnonymoufly to de-
fignate the vaulted expanfe above our beads ; yet
we exprefs them differently, for we ufe the for-
mer always without, but the latter always with,
the definite Article. Again, before the name
of that which poffeffes an exiftence unlike to
all others, and which is of fo peculiar a nature
as not to admit the idea of number, it is ufual
to place the definite Article, as the fun, the
moon, and the world. And to what other
clafs can the word God, as fignifying the one
fupreme and felf-exiiling Being, be properly
affigned ? Yet we do not, under this applica-
tion of the term, fay, the God, as we fay the
fun, definitely, but God, abfolutelv.

It feems then, that, in explanation of fuch in-
congruities, we mufl have recourfe, not to any
infallible code of philological laws, but to an
ufage difdainful of all reflridlion. Nor is even
this, principle to be confidered as uniform in
its operation, and conflant in its charaden
Fickle, fluduating, unliable, it fubverts and re-

X2

116

eftabliflies, eredls and demoliflies, at pleafurC;,
and fometimes abandons even its own innova-
tions. A ftyle of expreffion to which we are
not habituated we are apt to pronounce ab-
horrent from the genius of our language ; but
that fuppofed genius, particularly in the cafe
before us, too often mocks defcription : when
we attempt to feize and examine it, it affumes
fo ihadowy and flitting a form as to elude our
grafp. To what, for example, but to the flux
of fafliion, and the caprice of ufage, can we
afcribe the various modes of expreflion adopted
in the different tranflations of the tenth verfe
of the thirty-fecond Pfalm ? The Common-
Prayer-Book Verfion renders it thus : '' Be ye
•' not like to horfe and mule, which have no
'* underfl;anding, whofe mouths mufl: be held
*' with bit and bridle,'' The Bible Verfion
thus : " Be ye not as the horfe and if^e mule,
*' which have no underfl;anding, whofe mouth
** mufl: be held in with bit and bridle,'* We
here perceive, in the firfl: inftance, a total omif-
fion of the definite and indefinite Articles;
then fubfequently a reftoration of the former,
but not of the latter ; while, in the prefent day,
propriety would require a reftoration of both :
for inftead of ** whofe mouth muft be held in

117

** with hit and hridle,'' we fliould now rather
fay, '^ whofe mouth muft be held in w ith a
*' bit and a bridle." Nor, in proof that our
idea of correcftnefs depends more upon habit
than fyftem, ought the provincialifm of coun-
ties to be overlooked : for, to an ear famihar
only with the dialed: of Cumberland, the per-
petual infertion of Articles does not found lefs
harfli and uncouth than the perpetual omif-
fion of them to a more polifhed ear.

If therefore the Englifh language be in its
ufe of Articles fo irregular, how are we pre-
cifely to point out, and to reftrain by certain
unerring laws, its correfpondence in this refpe6t
with the Greek language ? It is well known,
that in Greek there is only one Article, which
is in general correctly tranllated by our defi-
nite Article the ; yet on fome occafions mull
we tranflate it indefinitely, and on others ab-
folutely. With regard to its indefinite accep-
tation, fliould a prejudice for fyftem induce us
to fufped the meaning of to q^o^. Matt. v. 1 .
and TO ttXoiov, Matt. ix. 1. we muft furely ren-
der TO (jLo^iov, Matt. V. 15. a meafure ; o Mcta-ytctKo^y
John iii. lo. a teacher; tqv oLvSr^uTrov, John vii.
51. a (or, as the New Verfion has it, any)
man; and ro -^ev^o^, John viii. 44. a lie. Nor

I 3

118

Will the abfolute fenfe in which the noun coni-
nefted with it is occafionally taken, appear
doubtful, when we obferve, that T'/iv ^ly.Akoa-jvYiv,
Matt. V. 6. can only fignifj righfeoajjiejk, not
ihe or a righteoufnefs ; yj x^P^^ icai' ri dXfjSstctr,
John i. 1 7. grace and tinith-^ and €k m S-avctn^ si^
Tviv 'Ccoviv, John V. 24. from death to life, I ufe
the ftrong terms mitjl and can v/ithout fear of
contradiction, becaufe the New Verfion itfelf
fanclions their application.

But further, as a Greek noun tcith the Ar-
ticle muft be varioufly rendered, fo alfo, as I
have already remarked, without the Article^
muft it be underftood fometimes definitely,
fometimes indefinitely, and fometimes abfo-
lutely. Having previoufly however adverted
to thefe points, I fhall not fruitlefsly multiply
examples, only fubjoining, with refpedl to the
lirft mode of expreffion alluded to, a fingle
paflage, which, even if it flood alone, would,
I conceive, prove decifive upon the fubjed:.
St. John fays, ipct nv ^? ^ejccczr,, c. iv. d. Would
it not be nonfenfe to tranllate this ** an hour'*
inflead of *' the hour was about the tenth V*

When thefe different circumflances are con-
templated; when we confider that in our owq
language the addition or omiffion of an Article

119

is often attributable to no other caufe than to
the predominance of a paramount ufage; when
we perceive limilar irregularities to exift in the
Greek language ; and the correfpondence be-
tween both to be regulated by no fixed and
determinate principles ; who w^ill boafl: of re-
ducing to the fubjedion of rule forms of ex-
preffion fuperior to all rule ? We are indeed too
apt, on every occafion, to reprefent pleonafms
and ellipfes as lyftematical ornaments, inftead
of what they often are, unfyftematical ble-
mifhes, of language ; and to dream of inde-
fcribable elegancies, where little perhaps is
really difcoverable except the negligence of
habit, or the peculiarity of cuftom : but as
well may we attempt to chain the wind, as to
reftrid: diverfity of ufage in the redundance or
fuppreffion of Articles, by any thing like an
invariable uniformity of conftrudion.

14

120

CHAP. VI.

Exifience of an Evil Being. Tranjlation of
the words Xoltciv and AiccSoAo^,

Another effort to regulate Scripture by
the ftandard of Unitarian faith occurs in the
lingular mode of occafionally tranflating the
words '^dTccv and Aioi^SoXof, not as proper names,
but as nouns appellative. They are therefore
thus rendered in the following paflages : '* Get
*' thee behind me, thou adverfary, Matt. xvi. 23.
" Have I not chofen you twelve? And yet one
" of you is afalfe acciifer, John vi. 7 1 : There
*^ hath been given to me a thorn in the flefh,
^' an angel-adverfary to buffet me, 2 Cor. xii. 7.
*' Give not advantage to the Jlanderer, Ephef.
*^ iv. 28. Left the adverfary fhould gain ad-
'^ vantage over us ; for we are not ignorant of
" his devices, 2 Cor. ii. 11. Have been taken
*' captive by the accufer, 2 Tim. ii. 26."

The objed propofed by this tranflation, and
explicitly avowed in various explanatory notes,
introduced at almofl every pofTible opportu-
nity, evidently is, to exclude from the Chrif-

121

tian creed. In conformity with the fentiments
of the Unitarian fchool, the dodrine of an
evil Being fuperior to man. They think it, I
prefume, irrational to fuppofe, that a Being of
this defcription exifts, becaufe fuch an ex-
iftence falls not immediately under the cog-
nizance of the human faculties ; and what
they do not think it rational to conceive, they
will not allow to be contained in holy Scrip-
ture. Hence they tell us more than once,
that the term devil means only ^' the principle
" of evil perfonified," Matt. xiii. 39. John viii.
44. 1 John iii. 8.

To enter into a philofophical difcuffion of
this fubje(9; would be foreign to my defign, as
well as irrelevant to the true point which can
be correctly faid to be in controverfy. The
point in difpute is rather a queftion of fad:
than one of philofophy : it is limply, whether
Jewifli opinions and Jewifli phrafeology will
warrant us in concluding, that by the expref-
fions ^ATctv and Ai^SoAcs" our Saviour and his
Apoftles meant a real perfon, or merely a per-
fonified quality.

Truths univerfally admitted require no formal
definition ; they are ufually introduced in the
way of allufion, and in moll inftances are

122

folely deducible from fome opinion Hated, or
from fome fa6t recorded, by inference. If
then the exiftence of an evil fpirit be no where
diredlly aflerted in the Old Teftament, we muft
hot on that account imagine, that it is not ex-
frefsly implied there ; for a fimilar remark
may be made refpecfting the doftrine of a fu-
ture ftate ; and yet are we forbidden by Chrift
himfelf to deny that it is there diftindly taught.
Matt. xxii. 32.

In the book of Job, a book to which critics
coincide in imputing the higheft antiquity S an

a Carpzovius, if not the laft, doubtlefs not the leaft, of
biblical critics, gives the following opinion, as the refult
of his reflexions upon the fubjeft of its antiquity : " Sic
^^ divinus jam ante Mo/en extabat Jobi liber_poeticus, ad
^' inftru6lionem fidelium le6tus quidem, et aflervatus, fed
«^ Canonico nondum a^ioofxciTi infignis. Poftquam autem
■" divinis aufpiciis Mofis opera condendi Canonis facri
*^ factum effet initium, diu poll, circa Samuelis forte zeta-
" tem, ejufdemque ni fallor manu, divini numinis jufTu,
" canonlcis ille libris additus et ad latus Arcae in Sanc-
** tuario publice repofitus videtur, cum Prologo ac Epilogo
<^ hiftorico ^soTrvsufoo^ ornaflet auxilTetque ilium Samuel,
" ut quse fermonum a Jobo exaratorum occafio, quis
*^ fcopus, quis hiftoriae nexus, quse rerum geftarum feries,
" et cataftrophe fuerit, ad communem Ecclefiae omnium
*' temporum notitiam et edificationem, ad oculum pateret.
** Ut adeo geminum agnofcat lihtr f crip for em, Johurriy qua

123

^evil Being, under the defignation of Satan, is
diredly noticed as appearing in the divine pre-
'fence, and as obtaining permiffion to attack
the integrity of Job by the fevereft temporal
infliclions. This charadler, it is true, is con-
lidered by fome as merely ideal, as nothing
more than an elegant embellifliment of a fub-
lime poem. Thofe, however, v^^ho thus confider
it, do not perhaps fufficiently refleft, that poets
are not philofophers ; that the celeilial Beings
ufually defcribed by them are not the fole
creatures of their own imagination, but fuch
as are to be found in the popular creed of their
times; and that the gods of Homer and Virgil,
not lefs than the angels and devils of Milton,
•were fuppofed to exift in nature. Befides, if
we are at liberty to prefume that Satan is an
ideal chara6ler, are we not at equal liberty to

*' fui parte metro eft adftri6i:us, et Samuelem, quod ad ca-
"" pita priora duo, et poftremum, attinet. Ad Samuelem
" vero ea de caufa referre malui, quod loquendi modus, in
." priore Samuelis libro adhibitus, ex alTe illi refpondet,
** quo profaica in libro Jobi capita perfonant. Tarn plane
*' tarn perfpicue tarn pure utrohique fermo fe hahet EhrcBuSy
" tarn ordinate porro, ac fuccin6le, narrationis feries ut
*^ ovum vix ovo fimilius videatur." Intvodudio ad Lib,
Poet. Bibl. p. 58. Ed. 1 73 1.

124

prefume the fame of the other party in the
dialogue, even of God himfelf ?

But, in truth, it is impolTible for the cha-
rafter of Satan to be here contemplated as a
mere poetical embellifliment ; and that for the
plaineft of all reafons; becaufe the chapters in
which it is introduced contain nothing bear-
ing the flighteft refemblance to poetry^ The
two firfl: chapters of Job are manifeftly pro-
faical, and are exprefled after the manner of
the fimplefl: and pureft narrative. No metrical
compofition occurs until the third chapter, and
then commences a ftyle wholly diffimilar to
the preceding, not only as being poetical, but
as appearing, in the judgment of the beft cri-
tics, to be replete with Arabifms, and an ob-
folete Hebrew phrafeology anterior to the
times of Mofes. Since therefore the prepara-
tory narrative, in which alone any mention is
made of Satan, is perfedly profaical, and be-
fpeaks a different author, as well as a later pe-
riod, it is abfurd to throw out crude conjec-
tures about poetical imagery, where neither
metre nor poetry exifts.

With the paiTage alluded to in Job may
be compared another in 1 Kings xxii. 19.
in which the prophet Michaiah defcribes an

125

almoft fimilar tranfaftion in almoft fimilar
terms. The hofts of heaven are reprefented
in both inftances as Handing in the prefence of
God, and a particular fpirit is noticed as intro-
ducing himfelf into the angelical aflembly, and
as counfelling, and fubfequently executing,
evil againll an individual among men. This
fpirit is in Job denominated ]tO*^n the Satan,
a word ufualiy conJfidered as derived from a
root fignifying to hate or oppofe ; in the book
of Kings he is denominated nilH the fpirit ;
the former being a defignation taken from the
malignity of his difpofition, the latter one
taken from the immortality of his nature.
That the prophet Michaiah meant by the ex-
preffion m*in a fuperior Being of a particular
defcription, feems evident from the demon-
Itrative prefix n ; and as a fuperior Being of a
particular defcription is directly pointed out,
is not his identity with the Satan of Job appa-
rent from the nature of his counfel and agency>
from his becoming '' a lying fpirit" ^pti? ni"l in
the mouths of the prophets of Ahab, to lead
that prince on to deftrudlion ? Although we
were to admit that the infpired writers might
in neither inftance intend to reprefent the ce-
leftial council as an adual occurrence, adopting

126

the form of dialogue, that prominent feature of
all oriental compofition, becaufe it was the
moft ufual and moft impreffive ; yet would it
be one thing to fuppofe the dialogue, and an-
other to fuppofe the characters, to which it is
afcribed, fi6iilious. Nor does it appear more
reafonable to make a partial feleclion among
thofe characters at pleafure ; to confider God
and the angels as real beings, and Satan, the
principal agent in both tranfactions, as an ima-
ginary one ; to introduce the Deity himfelf
converfing with an abfolute non-entity. Be-
iides, even in the boldeli flyle of profopopoeia>
it would be anomalous, becaufe it would be
unintelligible, to affix any other denomination
to the thing or quality perfonified, than its
true and appropriate one. Thus had Solomon,
in his elegant perfonification of ivijdom, (Pro-
verbs viii.) fubiiituted for wijdom the term
friendfliip, becaufe ivifdom is friendly to the
beft interelts of man ; or, what would have
been (till more obfcure, the term f?^iend; would
not his alluiion have been utterly incompre-
henfible ? And yet mult w^e fay, according to
what Unitarians conlider as the only rational
expofition of the paflage, that the author of
the two firli chapters of Job, when he wiflied

127

to perfonify evil, fufficiently marked his mean«^
ing by adopting the expreffion \D\^r\ the enemy,
folely becaufe evil is inimical to man.

To the preceding quotations from Job and
Kings may be fubjoined another of a fimilar
import. It is this : '' And he fliewed me Jo-
" fliua the high-priell ftanding before the an-
" gel of the Lord, and Satan ptrn Handing at
" his right hand to re/ijl him, pLDt^^^. And
" the Lord faid unto Satan, The Lord rebuke
" thee, O Satan." Zech. iii. 1, 2. Here fome
have conjediured, that the word Satan means
only thofe adverfaries who oppofed the high-
priell: in the rebuilding of the temple, after the
return of the Ifraelites from captivity. It is
remarkable, however, that St. Jude gives the
precife form of reproof mentioned by Zecha-
riah on this occafion ; '' The Lord rebuke thee,?
as one ufed by Michael the archangel in a con-
tention with fomething more than a mere hu-
man adverfary. Indeed moft commentators
are difpofed to think, that St. Jude alludes to
this very paffage in Zechariah ; and much in-
genuity has been exhibited ^ in reconciling the

^ Certainly not the lead ingenious conjecture on this
fiabjed is that of Stofch, which Schleufner gives in the

128

texts. But for my prefent purpole it is not
perhaps materiaL If St* Jude really alludes
to it, the meaning of the word Satan, at leafl:
as he underftood it, will be evident. If he
does not, but refers to another author and a
different tranfaftion, this, inftead of diminifli-
ing, will be only adding to, the teftimony ; for
even apocryphal teftimony, in corroborating
the ufual acceptation of a particular phrafe,
muft be deemed admilTible. If therefore the
llyle of the angelical reproof be the fame in
Zechariah, in St. Jude, and in a preceding apo-
cryphal author, and if the party reproved be

following terms : " Jude 9. ad quern locum tamen aliam
*' earn que ingeniofam conje6luram protulit Stofch in Ar-
'' chffiol. CEconom. N. T. p. 41. qui o-wjxa Mcouo-sojf reddit
*^fervum Mofis, ipfumque adeo pontiiicem maximum Jo*
*'fuam intelligit, fimulque monet o-wjxa in notione man-
*' cipiiyfervii etiam honoratiori fenfu adhiberi de militihus
*' cujufcunque ordinisJ* Lexic. Art. o-ojfxa. For the accep*
tation of <rMiJi,ot. in the fenfe of a fervant, fee Wetftein in
Apoc. xviii. 13.

Schoetgen, in his Horoe Talmud* vol. i. p. 1080. offers
another conje6lure. He confiders (rw|W,a Mcouo-sw^ as a He-
braifm, meaning only Mbfes himfelf : but he does not
make out his point. In Rabbinical Hebrew indeed DU
is ufed reciprocally, but always, I conceive, with a prono-
minal affix, and not in conftru6lion with another fub^
ftantive.

129

in each inftance defcribed under the fame ap-
pellation, will it not follow, that in each in-
ftance alfo the fame character is defignated ?

So general indeed was the perfualion among
the Jews of this reproof being uttered to an
infernal fpirit, that in the Talmud we find the
repetition of the very w^ords alluded to pro-
pofed as the moli effectual proteftion againft
the attacks of Satan. The fuperftitious Tal-
mudiffs ^ caution their timid difciple, a warn-
ing faid to have been given by Sammael, w^ho
is elfewhere termed Satan, the angel of death,
not to ftand in the way of a female proceffion
returning from a funeral, '' becaufe," faith the
angel of death, '' becaufe I, with fword in hand,
*^ leap exulting before it, and I pollefs the do-
'" minion of torture. Mm ip^D '^NtT '^DD

*' bnn^ ^\^\:;'\ ^b v''^ n»:2 '>yT\^ p^^Db. But if,"

continues the Gemara, '' the meeting be un-
" avoidable, what is his remedy ? Let him re-
" cede fome paces from the fpot. If a river
'^ be near, let him ford it ; or if a road in an-
," other diredlion, let him proceed that way ;
" or if a wall, let him ftand behind it. But if

c Orcio n^];")f Codex niDnn cap. vii. Gemara. Barto-
loccii Bib. Rabbin, v. iii. p. 369. A pallage of a fimilar
tendency is alfo quoted by Wagenfeil in his Sota, p. 484. •

K

130

*' no retreat appear, then let him turn his face
*' and exclaim, * The Lord faid to Satan, The
*^ Lord rehuhe thee^ Satan ; and the danger
" fliall depart from him."

Would you then, perhaps the Unitarians
will fay, with that contempt which generally
charafterizes the conceit of fuperior wifdom,
would you then revive the obfolete extrava-
gance of Rabbinical reverie? Certainly not.
But my argument furely will not fufFer by the
proof, that the Jews themfelves, who mani-
feftly could not have been influenced by Chrif^
tian expofitions, have always underftood the
text of Zechariah precifely as I do, and pre-
cifely indeed as the generality of Chriftians
have always done. To eflablifh the facft is one
thing 5 but to approve of every abfurdity which
a fuperftitious imagination may deduce from it^
is clearly another.

In addition alfo to what has been faid, it
may be remarked, that the expreffion ]^^r\,
with the demonftrative n prefixed, occurs but
twice in the Old Teftament, in Job and in Ze-
chariah ; and that in both cafes the Being fo
denominated appears in the prefence of, and
is addrefled by, God himfelf. Is it not there-
fore highly improbable, that the fame expref-

131

lion, thus diftinguifhed, fliould, in the firft in*
ftance, fignify the perfonification of an abftrad:
idea, that of evil; and in the fecond, a mere
human being ^

Were the foregoing obfervations infufficient
to prove the ancient behef in a fuperior order
of evil fpirits, an additional argument might be
brought from Deuter. xxxii. 17. v^here it is
faid, '' They facrified to devils, Cntr. not to
*' God." For it feems indifputable, that the
word D^S^, whatfoever difference of opinion
may be entertained refpefting its derivation,
muft mean detefted objedls of heathen worflaip,
which were fuppofed to poffefs a real exiftence,
becaufe it is tranllated Aaif^ovia,, not only in the
Septuagint, but by the author of the apocry-
phal book Baruch, c. iv. 7. and by the Apoftle
Paul, 1 Cor. X. 20 ; and the fpiritual nature
alfo of the ActijLcovia, is lirongly afferted both in
the Apocrypha and in the New Teltament.

Apocryphal teftimony indeed is inadmiffible
in fettling a point of doftrine ; but it may at
leaft be received in determining the currency
of an opinion. It ftiould be therefore noticed,
that in the Wifdom of Solomon the fall of
man is diredly imputed to the envy of the de-,
til : " For God created man to be immortal,

K2

132

^' and made him to be an image of his own
** eternity ; neverthelefs through envy of the
'* devil, (pS-ovco Aiu^Aa, came death into the
'* world, and they who hold to his Jide, ol tvi^
*' smiva fA^epi^o^ ovT€^y do find it." c. ii. 23, 24. Is
not the perfonahty of the Devil, A/ctSoAo^, here
pointed out in terms, the meaning of which it
is impoffible to miftake ?

Having thus confidered the principal traces
of the fubjed: before me difcoverable in the
Old Teftament, I ftiall now turn to the New.

The authors of this Verfion affirm, that the
word Satan, whatfoever might have been the
vulgar opinion, certainly, in the contemplation
of Chrift and his Apoftles, indicated not a real
but a fictitious being.

It is natural however to alk, upon what
proof do they ground their argument, that the
private opinion of our Saviour w^as in direct
oppofition to his public tefl:imony ; that when
he fpoke of Satan he meant by that expreffion
no more than a lymbolical exiftence, the mere
perfonification of an abfiiracft quality ? They
will perhaps anfwer,. upon the prefumption
that he could not, confiftently with reafon,
have meant otherwife. But why fhould it be
deemed irrational to conceive, that intellectual

133

beings of a fuperior order may have tranfgreiTed
the laws of their Creator, as well as thofe of
an inferior order ; that there fliould be bad
angels as well as bad men ? And what is this
rule of human reafon, from which revelation
itfelf muft never be fuppofed to fwerve ? If
they will liften to a critic of character, whofe
occafional aberrations from received opinion
at leaft mull recommend him to their efteem,
he will tell them, that ^' what we call reajon,
" and by which we would new model the
*' Bible," (he is fpeaking of theological conjec-
ture in the emendation of the text,) '' is fre-
'' quently nothing more ih'dnjbme fq/Mo?iahle
*' Jj/Jlejji of philofophy , which, lafts only for a
*' time, and appears fo abfurd to thofe who
^* live in later ages, that they find it difficult to
*' comprehend how rational beings can have
*^ adopted fuch ridiculous notions ^." And he
inftances the example of the Gnofiics. In the
days of Gnofticifm indeed every thing was fpi-
ritualized, and credulity carried to an extreme
one way ; but now, it feems, every thing is tp
be materialized, and incredulity puflied to an
extreme the other. Truth, however, I am

^- Michaelis's Introdudion, vol. ii. part i. p. 415.
K 3

134

perfuaded, may ftill be found in the middle
lyftem ; in a lyftem equally remote from the
fantaffical reveries of the Gnoftics, and from
the negative hypothefes of the Unitarians.

But let us more attentively confider the
proofs of this fappofed Chriftian philofophy.
We muft underftand then, that a profeffed ob-
}€&. of our Saviour's miffion was to abolifh the
fuperftitious doftrine of evil fpirits ; to eradi-
cate from the popular mind the ideal empire
of darknefs. Conceiving this therefore to have
been an objedl of his miffion, how, we may
alk, did he efFedl it ? Was it, as in the cafe of
Pharifaical fuperftition, by attacking the ofFen-
live creed in bold and difdainful language, and
in terms expoiing it, without referve, to merited
contempt and infamy ? Indifputably not. But,
on the other hand, by adopting it on every oc-
cafion as his own, by temporizing with his
hearers, by foftering their prejudices even to
fatiety, and by ultimately leaving them to cor-
real their own errors ! Surely if fuch were our
Saviour's objeft, his mode of accomplilhing
that objed was rather lingular «. Nor Ihould

e See Mr. John Jones's " Illuftrations of the four Gof-
« pels," p. I72>i73'

135

it be forgotten, that the Unitarians, on other
occafions, withhold at pleafure their belief in
every thing which is not exprefsly and re-
peatedly declared : yet on this occafion would
they wifh us to believe that which is not de-
clared at all ; which is folely deducible from
an aflumed paramount rule of reafon, and
from principles of fcriptural interpretation too
refined for vulgar comprehenfion.

If it were one avowed objecft of our Sa-
viour's million to annihilate the received doc-
trine of an evil Being, we might conjecture, that
fome very early indication of it would appear
in the Evangelical hiftory. But, on the con-
trary, we are informed, that at the very com-
mencement of his miniftry he was " led up of
*' the Spirit into the wildernefs to be tempted
*' by the devil,'" Matt. iv. 1 ; and this is Hated
with various particulars of the event, without
the flighteft collateral or ulterior explanation.
The authors of the New Verfion indeed fay,
*^ This form of expreiRon (viz. ' Jefus was led
' up by the Spirit') denotes that the hiflorian
*' is about to defcribe a vijionary fcene, and
*' not a real event." And fo faid Farmer be-
fore them. But what is the reply of another
favourite writer of the fame fchool ? " When

k4

136

" this is the cafe," obferves Mr. John Jones, *^ it
^' is always declaimed that the fcene is vijionary^
" and not j^eal. ***** Do the EvangeHfts
*^ then fay, that the temptations of Chrift, or
" the fcenes which he faw, were a vijionf Not
^' a word, nor the llightefl; intimation of the
^' kind is given by them ; and there is as good
*' reafon for fuppofing that he was baptized,
'' or ajinounced bv a voice from heaven as the
" Son of God, in a vijion, as for thinking he
" was tempted in a vijion,'' p. 630. Again,
^' With the New Teftament in our hands, we
'^ feel ourfelves furrounded with the mild and
*' benignant fplendour of truth and reality ;
'' but this critic (viz. Farmer) would envelope
*' our hemifphere in gloom at the moment the
*^ Sun of righteoufnefs fheds his pureft, fereneft
" rays on our horizon ; and zvith prepojierous
^' officioufnefs would refled: on our path the
'' livid light of a midnight taper, when the Son
^' of God himfelf ftands before us clothed with
*^ the luminary of day." p. 632. It feems, then,
tlikt it mull not be a vifion. Still however, al-
though '' we feel ourfelves furrounded with the
*^ mild and benignant fplendour of truth and
'^ reality,'' it may only be, according to the fe-
cond hypothefis of our Tranflators, '' a figura-

137

'* tive defcriptionof the train of thoughts which
^^ pafled through the mind of Jefus.'* And
this is the opinion of Mr. Cappe, and Mr. John
Jones himfelf, I fhall not however wafte my
time in attempting to fpht the hair of reality
between writers whofe only difference of opi-
nion feems to be, that, while one reprefents
our Saviour as forefeeing, in a vijioii at Naza-
reth, the future fcene of his fufferings, and, '' in
" order to qualify him for death, as dreaming
^' that he fhould die,'' the other reprefents him
as forefeeing the fame fcene with his eyes
open in the ivildernefs ; but fliall pafs on to
other confiderations, limply noticing '^ the con^
*' Jirmation (as it is termed) of his interpreta-
*' tion," given by Mr. John Jones, who, with-
out any particular comment, refers for this
purpofe to a well known allegory of Xeno-
phon, denominated *' the Choice of Hercules ;''^
and adds, that '' nothing in all antiquity can
*' be found more fimilar to the temptation of
*^ our Lord, both in fentiment and language ! "
p. 633.

To examine therefore with a little more ac-
curacy this new^ idea, that the affertion of an
affirmative is fometimes the moft effedual
mode of proving a negative, when our bleffed

138

Saviour, certainly not at the moment very an-»
xious to avoid ^^ alienating and inflaming his
" countrymen f," thus addrelTes the Jews;
*^ Ye are of your father the devil, and the lufts
^' of your father ye will do : he was a mur-
*^ derer from the beginning, and abode not in
*' the truth," John viii, 44, is it poiTible to
conceive, that he was playing with their pre-
judices, and merely alluded to a perfonijied
quality? When likewife, in his defcription of
the day of judgment, he ufes the terms ^' ever-
*' lafting fire, prepared for the devil and his an-
*' gels,'* Matt. XXV. 41. can we, conliftently
with common fenfe, fuppofe that, by the words
the devil and his angels, he meant and wilhed
his hearers to underftand him as meaning no-
thing more than metaphorical exiftences ? If it
be neverthelefs Hill infilled, that, when ipeak-
ing to the people at large, he had a purpofe to
anfwer in humouring popular prejudice by the
adoption of popular language, it will fcarcely, I
prefume, be argued, that he had any purpofe to
ferve in adopting a fimilar language when ad-
drefling his own difciples. And yet we find him
frequent in the ufe of it. To them he fays, even

^ Illuflrations of the four Gofpels, p. 171.

139

in explanation of a parable, " The enemy
*^ that fowed the tares is the devil J* Matt. xiii.
39 : a moll Angular aflertion indeed by way
of proving the non-exilience of fuch a being.
When alfo they tell him, that " even the de-
*' vils, AoLifjLQvict, are fubjed: to him," Luke x. 1 7.
inftead of correfting their error, if error he
conceived it to be, he replies, " I beheld Satan
*' like lightning fall from heaven." In another
place, addreffing himfelf to Peter, he exclaims,
*' Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath defired to
'^ have you," Luke xxii. 31. And even after
his refurredion, v^hen he appeared in a vifion
to St. Paul, he calls him " to turn men from
*' darknefs to light, ^LuAfrom the power of Sa-
'* tan unto God," Ads xxvi. 18.

Nor are the Apoftles, in their Epiftles both
to Jev^'S and Gentiles, more fcrupulous in the
free ufe of language, which, if they had not
learned, they at leaft had heard, from their di-
vine Mafters. To reconcile their phrafeology
to the Unitarian hypothefis is a talk which no

s See John xiii 3. A6ls xiii. 10. Rom. xvi. 20. i Cor,
V. 5. vii. 5. 3 Cor. ii. 11. xi. 14. xii. 7. Ephef. iv. 27.
vi. II. 1 ThefT. ii. 18. a ThefT. ii. 9. i Tim. i. 20. iii. 5,
7. V. 15. % Tim. ii. 26. Heb. ii. 14. James iv. 7, i Pet*
V. 8. 2 Pet, ii, 4* Jude 6.

140

effort and draining will ever fatisfaAorily ac-
complifh. One would conceive that, when
St. Paul fpeaks of '* delivering fuch a one to
** Satan,'' l Cor. v. 15. and of'' Satan's tranf-
'* forming himfelf into an angel of light,"
2 Cor. xi. 14. he meant tl^e fame perfon. But
our new Interpreters tell us, that in the firft
inftance Satan is to be confidered as a fort of
ideal fovereign over an ideal kingdom of dark-
nefs : in the latter, as a falfe Apoftle, the kad-
ing adverfary of St. Paul. I fliall quote the
laft paflage. Speaking of falfe teachers, St. Paul
obfeyves, that '' they transform themfelves into
** the Apoftles of Chrift. And no wonder: for
^' Satan alfo transformeth himfelf into an angel
'' of light. It is therefore no great thing if his
^' minifters alfo transform themfelves as minif-
^' ters of righteoufnefs." What can poffibly
be more fimple in its import ? This however
is to be thus perplexed ; As the leading adver-
fary of St. Paul, denominated Satan, tranSf
forms himfelf into an angel of light ; that is,
*^ arrogates to himfelf the character of a mef-
^^ fenger from God-,'' fo alfo the miniflers of
this adverfary transform themfelves into the
minifters of righteoufnefs, that is, " pretend to
'' be the Apojiles of the MeJJiahr But where

141

do we find any mention of this leading adver-*
fary, who arrogated to himfelf the charafter
of an angel, (for the words angel of light can-
not, I maintain, be lowered into the dire6l
lenfe of a mere mejfenger fmm God, fuch as
were all the prophets,) and who, in purfuance
of his divine nliffion, had his appropriate mi-^
niflers, ^laKomP Did St. Paul ever term his fel-
low- labourers in the Gofpel his miiiiJlersP The
minifters of Satan contrailed wnth the minifters
of Chrill is fufficiently intelligible. But where
is the contraft in oppofing the minifters of a
falfe apoftle to the minifters of Chrift, unlefs
^ve can alfo fuppofe a contraft in the princi-
ples ; viz. between the falfe apoftle himfelf
and our Saviour ? Befides, the word Satan is
Hebrew, not Greek; and as being therefore in
all probability only known to the Corinthians
in a peculiar fenfe, was fcarcely ufed by St.
Paul to exprefs the general idea of aji adver^
fary.

But a ftill more lingular expofition occurs in
a comment, which they adopt from another
WTiter, upon a paflage of St. Jude* In order
to point out the dreadful judgments of God
again ft the difobedient, the Apoftle inftances
the puniftiment of the fallen angels,, the de-

142

ilruftion of the world by water in the days of
Noah, and the overthrow of Sodom and Go-
morrha by fire from heaven. The cafe of the
fallen angels he thus defcribes : '* The angels
"' who kept not their firft eftate, but left their
*' own habitation, he hath referved in eternal
** chains to the judgment of the great day/*
ver. 4. In explanation of this the following
paraph rafe is given : ^^ The meflengers who
^' watched not duly over tJieir own principal
*' lity, but deferted their proper habitation, he
•^ kept with perpetual chains under darknefs
*^ [pmiifhed them with judicial blindnejs of
*^ mind) unto the judgment of a great day, i. e.
** when they were dejlroyed by a plague, Al-
*' luding to the falfehood and punilhment of
*' the fpies, Numb. xiv. 36, 37 !" Were we
however difpofed to try the experiment of con-
verting the word angels into mejfengers, and
to confider thefe as the fpies fent out by Mofes
and the Ifraelites to inveftigate the land of
Canaan, what poffible fenfe can be made of the
crime imputed to them ; viz. '' that they watch*
*' ed not duly over their own principality?'*
Nor can thofe with any propriety be faid to
have " deferted their proper habitation," clttoXi*
TTonag TO iavTcov oDcvjTi^piov, who had no proper

145

habitation to defert. Befides, could we fup-
pofe that the phrafe, ''judgment of the great
" day,'' is fynonymous with that of deJiruBion
by the plague, ftill would it require the talent
of CEdipus himfelf in the folution of metapho-
rical senigma to demonftrate how the words,
" he hept in eternal chains under darltnefs^
iecrfjLot^ duoici? vtto ^o<pov TSTYi^riKev, can poffibly mean,
he punijiied ivith judicial blindnej's of mind;
particularly as St. Peter, who adduces the fame
example, adds the participle rct^Ta^ua-ci^, caoai^
^G(pii Tcc^upcoQ-cL^ 'ujctps^ajicev, *^ having cajl them
** down to hell, he deUvered them into chains
" of darknefs/' 2 Pet. ii. 4. And with what
propriety can judicial blindnefs of mind, the
a<ft, I prefume, of forming an erroneous judg-
ment of the promifed land, which conftituted
the crime of the fpies, be termed their punifli-
ment ?

On the whole then; if the exiftence of a fpi-*
ritual enemy to man, under the denomination
of Satan, is difcoverable in the Scriptures of
the Old Teftament; if this were confeffedly the
popular creed at the period of the promulga-
tion of Chriftianity; if our Saviour himfelf
adopted it as his own creed without any ulte-
rior explanation, not only when publicly ad-

144

dreffing the people, but alfo when privateljr
Converfing with his own difciples ; and if the
Apoftles hkewife exprefled themfelves in fimi-
lar language, it feems reafonable to conclude,
that Satan is defcribed as a real, and not as a
fictitious being. That tranflation therefore of
the word ^a^rctv cannot be correft, which, by
rendering it adverjary, deprives it of the pecu-
liar fenfe which was ufually affixed to it. It
admits indeed in Hebrew as w^ell the general
fenfe of adverjary or accufer, as the particular
fenfe of a fallen angeL But it fliould be re-
colleded, that the queftion turns upon its
meaning in the Greek, and not in the Hebrew
Scriptures. Had the Apoftles intended to ex-
prefs the general idea of an adverjary y they
would doubtlefs have ufed clvtiSiko?, or fome
other equivalent Greek expreffion ; becaufe
otherwife they would have been unintelligible
to thofc, for whofe inftru6lion they wrote.
Satan, as a term appropriated to an evil Being
of a fuperior nature, could only be underftood,
we may prefume, by the Greeks as it ftill is by
us in Englifli : but had St. Luke, for example,
inftead of cog yctp vTruysif fjusrct, th ct^vTiSiKH tm of a^-
XovTU, C. xii. 58. WTitten ^f ya.^ vvrayeig f^ilci t^ ^ct^
Tcim (TH STT ctpx^vlc., that is, inftead of, ''when thou

145

•' goeft with thine adverfary to the magiftrate/'
had he written, " when thou goeft with thy Sa-
" tan to the magiftrate," would not both Greek
and Enghfti have appeared a little nonfenfical ?
The appropriate name of a perfon or thing, or
of a clafs of perfons or things, before unknown,
may be naturally borrowed from another lan-
guage in which it is familiarly ufed ; but to
fuppofe that the infpired writers of the New
Teftament, when addrelTing thofe who were
ignorant of Hebrew, unneceflarily adopted from
that tongue words expreffive only of general
ideas, would be to convert them into a fort of
conceited triflers, whofe objeft was rather to
puzzle than to inftru6t. That the Greek lan-
guage contained no term peculiarly appro-
priated to the name of a being, refpe6ling
whofe exiftence the Greeks had no knowledge,
muft be evident. Hence therefore appears the
reafon why the Apoftles on fuch occalions
ufed an Hebrew expreffion. But even this, it
may be faid, would not have been intelligible,
without a previous explanation. Moft cer-
tainly it would not ; and that very circum-
ftance tends to prove the Ipecific fenfe in
which it was meant to be underftood. For if
the Apoftles^ as well as the Jews in general,

I.

146

believed in the real exiflence of Satan, it is
obvious that they vv^ould inculcate the fame
opinion on their heathen converts, and would
confequentlj^ explain to them the meaning of
that term ; but if they did not believe in it, no
poffible neceffity could arife for their explain-
ing it at all. Would they not rather have ab-
llained from every allufion to it, than have run
the rifk of appearing to countenance a creed
which they difclaimed; and this folely for the
puerile pleafure of fporting with a tortured me-
taphor ? That they proceeded ftill further, and
previoufly explained the general meaning of a
certain Hebrew expreffion, without any par-
ticular objedl of the kind alluded to in view,
is furely a polition which ftiould fhock even
the conjedural credulity of the new fchool.

147

CHAP. VII.

Tranjlation of the word AyfeAo^, Heb. i. Dif-
pufed books, Griejlack, Conchijion.

Although theXranflators take every pof-
fible opportunity to reprefent a belief in the
exiftence of fallen angels as irrational, and
therefore unfcriptural, they do not altogether
deny the exiftence of angels themfelves. This
they feem to admit ; yet, as the word uyfeAo^
means both a mejfenger and an angel, they
fometimes attempt, for certain theological pur-
pofes, to give it the former in preference to the
latter fignification, in dired: oppofition to the
context. When St. Stephen ftates the law to
have been received '' by the miniftry of an-
^* gels," we are informed in a note, that
** thunder, lightning, and tempeft, may be
" called angels, like the plague of Egypt,
*' Pfalm Ixxviii. 49; and the burning wind,
'' Ifaiah xxxvii. 36 h;'' or that thefe angels may

h But the illuftrations here adduced are defective in
proof. The evil angels, or angels infliBing evils, men-

L 2

148

only mean '* Mofes, Aaron, Jolliua, and a fuc-
*' ceflion of authorized prophets and mejfen^
" gers of God,^' But a mote ftriking inftance
of their perverting the obvious import of this
word occurs in feveral palTages of the firft
chapter of the Hebrews, in which they uni-
formly tranflate it mejfenger ; and it is this
tranflation which I propofe particularly to con-
fider.

Their objedl is fufficiently evident. Through-
out the whole of the chapter in queliion the

fioned Pfalm Ixxviii. 49. ought rather perhaps to be
taken literally, in allufion to Exodus xii. 23. where the
n^nti'Dn the dejlroyer (tov oko^pevovTu in the Septuagint) is
introduced as only permitted to ftrike the firft.-born of the
Egyptians ; and this fenfe^ it fhould be remarked, is evi-
dently given to the phrafe in the Greek Verfion of Sym-
machus, who renders it ay/eXwv xuxBvrcav, angels qffliSiing
them with evils. See alfo 2 Sam. xxiv. 17. in which Da-
vid is ftated to have feen the angel who fmote the people
with peftilence. With refpeft to the paflage in Ifaiah,
that which is termed a lurning wind is exprefsly ftated in
the text to have been the angel of the Lord, who is repre-
fented as having gone out (n^^) and fmitten in the camp
of the AlTyrians a hundred fourfcore and five thoufand.
Why muft we attribute to natural caufes alone what is
plainly defcribed in Scripture as effected by the agency of
fupernatural beings ? It cannot be becaufe we difbelieve
the exiftence of fuch beings.

149

fuperiority of Chrift to the angds is tbo dif-
tinftly afferted to be explained away. In imi-
tation therefore of Wakefield, they endeavour
to get rid of the difficulty at once (a difficulty
which might otherwife prove a Humbling-
block to their creed) by rendering ctyhXot mef-
fengers, and by giving us at the fame time-to
underfland, that the melTengers alluded to are
the prophets of the Old Teftament. The au-
thority of Wakefield I admit to be refpedable;
a writer certainly of claffical tafie, and of ele-
gant attainments, but by no means ranking
high on the lift of biblical critics ; whofe tranf-
lation of the New Teflament is, like theirs,
deeply tinAured by his creed, and whofe pro-
fefTed attachment to truth and candour was too
often bialTed by prejudice, and difgraced by
farcafm. Thofe however who boafl the habit,
and experience the pride, of diffent, will not,
I prefume, expeft others to adopt, without ex-
amination, the opinion of any man whatfo-
ever ; particularly an opinion, the credit of
which, unfupported both by reafoning and
precedent, folely refis upon the critical acumen
of Wakefield.

In the two firfl: chapters of this Epifl:le the
word duyUXok occurs no lefs than nine times; in

L 3

150

the firft fix of which it is tranflated meffengerSj
but in the remaining three, angels. This in-
correcftnefs of ftyle, however, it is obferved, to
which the ambiguity of the word gives rife, is
not uncommon in the facred writers, but no
parallel cafe fpecifically in point, or indeed any
at all, is alleged in proof of the aflertion.
Surely this, as Mr. Nares juftly remarks, '* is an
" extraordinary mode of reconcihng matters ;
^' for it is not the Apoftle, but the Editors
** themfelves, who give thefe different fenfes
^^ to the term angel, and thqn cenfure the fa-
'' cred writers for an incorre&nejs ofJlyleK''

I fliall not, I truft, be accufed of miftating
their argument, if I reduce it to this fimple af-
fertion ; that, as the word angel is fometimes
ufed in the Old Teftament to denote a prophet,
fo alfo is the fame fignification to be annexed
to it in the particular paflage under confidera-
tion.

The term indeed is doubtlefs applied to the
prophets in fome, but not in many paflages of
the Old Teftament ; yet ought we to remark,
that it is never fo applied without a pronoun, or
^ genitive cafe connefted with it, indicative of

» Remarks, p. 119,

151

him whofe meiTengers they were. Often how-
ever it Hands alone, and is then only ufed to de-
fignate thofe fuperior beings, of whom it is the
fole charaderiftical appellation, to whom it is
exclufively a name defcriptive, fpecific, and ap-
propriate. Thus, to quote one out of many in-
ftances, it is faid, 1 Kings xix. 5. that, when
Elijah, flying from the vengeance of Jezebel,
and exhaufted with fatigue, lay under a juniper
tree, an angel '^i^^D touched him, and faid, Arife
and eat. Here we perceive the term occurring
alone, without even the prefix (or definite arti-
cle) n, and diftinftly pointing out a being, well
known under that particular denomination.
But the conftrucftion is wholly diflimilar when
it is applied to the prophets : for then we read,
'* The Lord fent to them by his meiTengers,
" * * * but they mocked the meflengers of
" God, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 15, \6 ; The Lord,
" who performeth the counfel of his meflen-
" gers, Ifaiah xliv. 26 ; Then fpake Haggai the
*' Lord's meflenger. Hag. i. 1 3 ; He is the mef-
" fenger of the Lord of Hojis, Malachi ii. 7 ;
** And I will fend my meflenger, Malachi iii. 1 :"
and thefe are the only texts in which it is to
be found in the latter fignification. The rea-
fon of the difference I apprehend to be obvious.

L 4

152

In the firfl: cafe, it is fufficiently declarative of
its own meaning ; but in the laft, not being fo
declarative, it requires fome adjunct to deter-
mine the precife fenfe of its fynonymous ap-
plication. Had Haggai, for inftance, defcribed
himfelf as a meffenger, inftead of the Lord's
meflenger, would not the phrafeology have
been incomplete, if not unintelligible ?

In oppofition however to every legitimate
principle of conftrucftion, thefe Translators con-
tend with Wakefield, that when the Son is
defcribed, Heb. i. 4. as '^ being made fo much
*' better than the angels, K^£iTlct)v rav uyfsAcov, as
'^ he hath by inheritance obtained a more ex-
'' cellent name than they," the expreffion tuv
uyfeXcov lignifies not the angels, but " the pro-
^^ phets, who are mentioned in the firfl: verfe."
Yet that cLyfsXog generally means angel, in the
ufual acceptation of the term, they feem them-
felves to admit, becaufe they thus tranllate it
Jixty-three out oi f evenly -four times^, in which

k \ have obferved it in the following texts: Matt. iv. ii.
xiii. 39,49- xxvi.53. Mark i. 13. Luke xvi. 1%, John v. 4.
xii. 29. A6ls vi. 15. vii. ^^, 38. xii. 8, 9, 10. xxiii. 8.
Rom. viii. 38. i Cor. iv. 9. xi. 10. xiii. i. Gal. iii. 19.
Col. ii. 18. I Tim. iii. 16. Heb. i. 4, 5, 5, 7, 13. ii. 2, 5,
7, 9, 16. xii. 22. xiii. 2. i Pet. i. 12. iii. 22. 2 Pet. ii. 4,

153

it occurs unconnefted with every other word
capable of determining its precife fenfe. And
of the eleven inrtances, in which they render it
mejfenger, fix will be found in the very paf-
fages under confideration. This circumftance
alone furely proves on which fide the general
prefumption of its import lies.

But I maintain that the word ctyfsXoi muft
here necefi^arily mean angelsy a clafs of beings
to whom it is peculiarly appropriated, becaufe,
although the prophets may be defcribed, as I
have already pointed out, under the title of
*' the meffengers of God,'' they cannot be cor-
reftly termed '' the meffengers^ We readily
comprehend how they are faid to be the mef-
fengers of Goc?, in common with others; but we
do not well underlland how they can be de-
nominated the meffengers emphatically and ex-
clufively. I may likewife remark, that they

II. Rev. i. 10, vii. i, 2, 11. viii. %, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. ix. i, 11.
X. I, 5, 7j 8- xi. 15. xiv. 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18^ 19. XV.
J, 6, 7, 8. xvi. I, 3, 5. xviii. i. xix. 17. xxi. 9, 12.

It is tranflated mejjenger, i Cor. xi. 10. Gal. iii. 19.
I Tim. iii. 16. Heb. i. 4, 5^ 6, 7, 13. ii. 2. xiii. 2. i Pet.
iii. 22 : and we are told that in Gal. iii. 19. the meffengers
mean officers, that is, Priefts and Levites ; in i Tim. iii.
16. the Apojiles ; and in Heb. i. 4, 5, 6, 7, 13. ii. 2. the
Prophets of the Old Teftament,

154

are called the fervantSy as well as the mejfen-
gerSy of God, and even that more frequently ^
But fhould we not condemn the phrafeology
as ftrangely incorred, which, when it is meant
to affert the fuperiority of Chrift over the pro-
phets, fliould limply reprefent him as fuperior
to thefervants P

To take off, however, as much as poffible
from the manifefl: incongruity of the expref-
fion, and to introduce a fort of reference to the
prophets incidentally mentioned in the firfl:
verfe, as the agents by whom God had for-
merly revealed his will to mankind, the Tranf-
lators adopt the Verfion of Wakefield, and
render rav ctyfeXuv, which does not occur till
the fourth verfe, '' thofe meffengers." It may
appear too harfh to denominate this a perver-
fion of the facred text ; but it mull be ad-
mitted to be an unauthorized addition of a not
inlignificant pronoun"^, for the exprefs pur-

1 The phrafes my, his, or thy ferv ants the prophets, occur
no lefs than lixteen times in the Old, and twice in the
New Teftament; 2 Kings ix. 7. xvii. 13, 23. xxi. 10.
xxiv. 2. Ezra ix. 11. Jerem. vii. 25, xxv. 4. xxvi. 5. xxix.
19. xxxv. 15. Ezek. xxxviii. 17. Dan. ix. 6, 10. Amos iii.
7. Zech. i. 6. Revelations x. 7. xi. 18.

^ The Article 6 in Greek is indeed fometimes ufed em-

155

pofe of fupporting a favourite expofition. Yet,
if we even conceded to them all the advantage
to be derived from fuch a tranflation, (a con-
ceffion which, as in a fimilar cafe, they would
not be difpofed to grant ; fo in this, I prefume,
they will not exped to receive,) ftill would it
be impollible for them to ellablifti the propriety
of a phrafe, which, in fpite of all their efforts,
could not but remain a palpable folecifm.

Nor are we folely left to conjedure refped:-
ing the true import of the word ayfeXoi ; for
the context diftindlly furnifhes us with a clue
to its meaning. We fubfequently read, '^ Of
** his angels he faith. Who maketh his angels
** fpirits, and his minifters a flame of fire,"
ver. 7 ; and again, ^* Are they not all mini-
" llering fpirits, fent forth to minifter for them
'^ who fhall be heirs of falvation?" ver. 14.
n^of TUf ctyfsXiif Xefet, *0 ttoiuv r^r ccyfeXa^ uvth tvsv-

phatically, as 6 Trpo^riTrjs ei cry, John i. ai ; but fo alfo is
the Engliih Article the, as " Art thou the prophet ?*' which
is the reading of the New Verlion. Mull it not therefore
be as incorreft to confufe the Englifh Article the with the
pronoun this or that, as it would be to confufe the Greek
Article 6 with the pronoun »toj or sxsms ? Of this the new
Tranflators themfelves feemed aware when they rendered
6 'npo(priTYi5 not that, but the prophet.

156

fjLdTCL, Kcti Tisg X&tTiS^yovg avrov TSvPog (pXoyet, * * * *
Ovxt TSdnsf ei(ri XsiTi^pynca zsvevf^ctrct, £ig ^iccx,ovioLy
awo^^eXXofA^^vci, ^ict r^f ^^XXovtcl<; KXyipovoji>LSiv a-ar/jpicLv;
The tranllation given in the New Verfion runs
thus: '' Of thefe meffengers the Scripture faith,
'' Who maketh the winds his melTengers, and
'' flames of lightning his miniiiers. * * * Are
'^ they not all fervants, fent forth to ferve the
*^ future heirs of falvation ?" I fliall confider
thefe paflages feparately.

Of the firfl it feems difficult to fpeak with-
out an unufual exprelTion of furprize. Ad-
mitting for a moment that ccyfsXag' means uiej-
fengers, and nyvevfjLccToi winds, inftead of ^' Who
*' maketh his mejfengers the winds, and his
'' minifters flames of lightning;' can we pof-
fiblj render the words, '' Who maketh the
*' winds his mejfengers, and flM??ies oflightjiing
''his mini/iers,'' by a tranfpolition, the princi-
ple of which is utterly inconceivable? And yet
fuch is the rendering of the New Verfion,
The Tranflators furely will never argue, that
the tranfpofition produces not the flighteft dif-
ference in the fenfe ; that it is, for example,
precifely the fame thing to fay, " Inhumanity
*' makes a mori/ier a man,'' as it is to fay, " In-
*' humanity makes a man a monfler'' Nor,

157

although they may be themfelves perfuaded,
that an unprejudiced inveffigation of truth
muft make a Trinitarian an JJjiitarian, will
they therefore, I prefume, admit, that an un-
prejudiced inveliigation of truth muft make an
Unitarian a Trinitarian. And how came they
on this occafion fo raflily to turn their backs
upon their favourite Wakefield ? How too
could they overlook the fevere cenfure of '' that
eminent fcholar" upon the very tranflation of
the pallage which they choofe to adopt ?
'^ Some," he remarks, ^' reverfe the tranflation
" here given, and render, ivJio maheth ivinds his
'' mejfengers, and flaming fire his miniflers :
** which makes the palTage jiift nothing at all
" to the writer s purpofe ; and, not to ipeak
" harflily of thefe Tranflators,

'' ignoratse premit artis crimine turpi "."

But leaving them to exculpate themfelves as
they can from the difgraceful charge of ig-
norance, pronounced by a celebrated leader of
their own party, and giving them, at the fame
time, the full advantage of his fuperior infor-
mation, I ftill contend, that, arrange the paf-
fage as you pleafe, the fignification of cty^sXog
muft be angel, and not prophet. For in what

" Tranflation of the New Teftament, vol. iii. p. 209,

158

poffible fenfe can the prophets be charader-
iftically defcribed as winds and as flames of
lightning P Tet this may be confiftently Hated
of the angels, who may be faid to refemble
the wind in aSivity, and the lightniiig in velo-
city. And if too, on the other hand, we tranf-
late 'uivsvfA.ciTu (perhaps more corre&ly) fpirits,
and TTv^o^ cpxoyA a flaming fire, not a Ihadow of
doubt will remain upon the fubjecl. Indeed,
that the authors of the Septuagint fo under-
ftood the original word mmi, is evident from
their tranflating it here vjvsvf^ATct, after having
in the laft claufe of the preceding verfe ren-
dered it ctvBfjLcov, the more appropriate Greek
term for tvinds °.

o In this fenfe alfo the pafTage alluded to in the Pfalms
was always taken by the mofl ancient Jewifh writers.
Schoettgen obferves, " Plerique Judaeorum verba haec de
*^ angelis eodem modo explicant, quorum omnia loca
" proferre nimis prolixum foret." Horae Heb. et Talm. in
loc. In the Pirke R. Eliezer, or Chapters of R, Eliezer,
chap. iv. where an allulion is made to the creation of an-
gels, this verfe of the 104th Pfalm is particularly referred
to : ninn I'wv^ nzij, \'nb\vi \nwD 'Td; am ixin:::; n^DK^Dn
&c. n'li'ir iDi<:w e^x bw vtt^j/3 V3dV nzD^mii^D p-^'Di " The an-
" gels who were created on the fecond day, when they
" are fent by his word, become fpirits ; and when they
" minifter before him, become fiery, (lL'k bv^ of fire) as it
" is written. He made his angels fpirits, and his miniflers

159

With refped to the latter part of the de-
fcription, in which the ctyfiXot are faid to be
minijleringfpirits, Xma^fiKa, Trvsvf^ctla, one might
have conceived this to be a difcriminating cha-
rafteriftic of the angelical nature impoffible
to be millaken. But the Tranflators of the
New Verfion, it feems, think differently, and
render the woidfervants. Here however they

** a flaming fire/' Four clafles of mini/iering angels '^AbD
mti'H are then defcribed as praifing him, who alone is
holy and blefled, and furrounding the throne of his glory.
Some critics have conceived, that the Trvgy/xara mnn
Jpirits, mentioned in the firft part of the verfe in queftion,
mean the Cheruhimj and the Jiery minifters in the fecond
part the Seraphim. The very name feraph fuflSciently
elucidates the latter conjecture. And the former perhaps
may be corroborated by the following remark of Drufius :
" Ignorari videor, cur nomen mafculinum Cherubim 70
" viri, Aq. et alii interpretes Graeci genere neutro ra Xs-
" g8^<jx tranftuliflent. * * * Ego arbitror ra Xepa^jju, com-
" pendio dici pro eo, quod eft ru nrvBu^cira, XspB^ifx,, i. e.
"Jpiritus, qui Cherubim nuncupantur." Obferv. Sac. lib, x.

C. !?I.

It fhould likewife be particularly obferved, that the
word 'TTvsvfxct occurs in other paflages of the New Tefta-
ment more thsin three hundred and JiftT/ times; and yet is
capable only in one inftance, viz. John iii. 8. (an inftance
however difputed by Wakefield himfelf ) of being tranf-
lated wind. The term generally ufed for wind is, as I
have remarked above, ave/jtoj.

i6o

do not, as in other inftances, reft upon the
prop either of the Primate's or of Wake-
field's Verfion, but boldly venture at a little
criticifm of their own. They tell us in a
note, that the phrafe is a Hebraifm ; a conve-
nient fort of term equally calculated for the
difplay of knowledge, and the concealment of
ignorance. They fay, " The word fpirit is a
*' Hebraifm to exprefs a perfon's felf, v, g.
•^ 1 Cor. ii. 11. the fpirit of a man is a man,
" is a man himfelf ; the fpirit of God is God
'^ himfelf, 2 Tim. iv. 22. The Lord Jefus Chrift
*' be with thy fpirit, i. e. with thee." But
how do they prove the fuppofed Hebraifm ?
Inftead of pointing out thofe paffages where
the correfponding term ni"l is thus ufed in the
Old Teftament, they merely produce two texts
from the New, in which they ftate mevf^d it-
felf to bear the alleged fignification. But if
they could demonftrate fo peculiar an accepta-
tion of the word in Greek, this would not conr
ftitute it an Hebraifm. I have examined V^or-
ftius, Olearius, and other champions of He-
braifms, to afcertain, if poffible, the grounds
of their aflertion, but in vain.

It feems not however very material, whe-
ther the phrafe be an Hebraifm, or not, if we

l6l

can but fettle its genuine import. If I under-
Hand them correcSly, they contend that the
term x^vev/Lict, in the paflages referred to, is put,
not for the Jpirit alone, but by fynecdoche for
the whole ma7i. This, I prefume, is all they
mean, when they fay, '' that thefpirit of a man
*^ is a maiiy is a nmn himfelf\'' for I cannot
conceive them to iniinuate here the exiftence
of a reciprocal, abhorrent from oriental ufageP,
and inapplicable to the obje(3: in view. Taking
it then as an inftance of fynecdoche, and that
thefpirit of a man, in the firft paflage quoted,
means only the man, we mull underftand the
verfe thus : '' What man knoweth the things
'^ of a man, but the man which is in him .^"
Without being faliidious however upon the
fingularity of fuch a mode of expreflion, I pre-
fume that the words to sv hvtu, zvhich is in him,
plainly indicate, that 7rvsvfjt.oL, with which they
are conneded, is taken in the fenfe of fpir it,
its ufual acceptation. Nor, in the fecond paf-
fage quoted, is there the ilighteft ground for
fuppofing that it bears a different meaning.

jjmX* in Arabic, tA.2u in Syriac, and CdTj^ in Rabbinical
Hebrew, which are ufed as reciprocals, do not govern the
fubftantive to which they relate, but conftantly affume a
pronoun affix. See DifTertation on the Logos, p. lo, ii,

M

i6'Z

Thephrafe, *' with thy fpirit/' cannot, I appre-
hend, be confidered as fynonymous with '' with
*' thee," becaufe it has an appropriate appli-
cation to the context, which the other phrafe
has not ; for the grace of Chrift is only com-
municable to the J'pirit or foul of man. The
pronoun thee, therefore, which implies the
whole individual, cannot be corredly fubfti-
tuted for thy fpirit, which implies only a pe-
culiar part of that individual. To be fenfible of
this, we need only turn to another epiftle of the
fame Apoftle, where we fhall find a diftin6lion
of the kind indifputable. '' I know," he elfe-
where remarks, *' that in me, that is, in my
^' jiejh, iv Tv\ o-afiKi (jlqv, dwelleth no good," Ro-
mans vii. 18. It is impoffible, I conceive, to
doubt of his intending here to qualify the ge-
neral expreffion, in me, by the particular limi-
tation which inftantly follows ; '' that is, in
'' my flejli^ Ought we not then to under-
ftand the word Trvsvf^a. in an equally reftriAed
fenfe, when under a fimilar confl:ru6lion ?

But what, to lift the queltion a little more
accurately, is really meant by this propofed
inftanceof fynecdoche? Are we, when it is re-
corded, that '' Chrift was led up by the Spirit/'
Matt. iv. } . to fuppofe that Chrift was led up

163

by himfelf; or, when it is faid, that '' God Is a
*^ fpirit," John iv. 24. to underftand the text
as implying, that God is himfelff It may per-
haps be repUed, that the cafes are widely dif-
ferent, becaufe the term Jpirit in l Cor. ii. 11.
and 2 Tim. iv. 22. is connecfted with the ge-
nitive cafe of a noun, or pronoun, denoting a
perfon, to which perfon alone it relates ; but it
is not fo in thefe texts. I admit the juftice of
the remark ; but IHII I afk. How then, upon
this very principle, can the fuppofed iynec-
doche be applicable to Heb. i. 14. the parti-
cular text in view ? Inftead of being here
joined to a genitive cafe expreffive of a perfon,
it is folely conneded with an adjedive, decla-
rative of nothing but a mere quality. Had A«-
TUpyiKct TTvevfjLAToL bccu hetTHfyoov Trvevf^^ctTci, it might
have been poffible to have dreamt of a fynec-
doche; but one would have imagined, that, as
the words Hand, the very dream of fo inappli-
cable a trope mull have been precluded.

But whatfoever meaning we may affix to
the words ^erni^ytKct TrvsvfjLcfjTct, it is plain, from
the tenfe of the verb in the fame fentence, that
they were not meant to be applicable to the
ancient prophets. Had the writer intended
thefe words fo to be, inftead of ^^ Are they

M 2

1 64

*' not," he Vv'ould doubtlefs have faid, *' Were
*' they not all miniftering fpirits, fent forth to
*^ minifter for them who fhall be heirs of fal-^
" vation ?" and that for this obvious reafon ;
becaufe the prophets alluded to v^ere dead
fome ages before the author of the Epiftle was
born. If however, on the other hand, we
apply the words in queftion to the angels,
every thing then becomes inftantly clear and
confiftent. Perhaps alfo it may not be unim-
portant to add, as the writer appears, from in-
ternal evidence, to have been himfelf of the
Hebrew nation, and as thofe whom he ad-
drefled indifputably were, that in the Talmud,
and other Rabbinical compolitions, the epithet
miniflering perpetually recurs in connexion
with the term angels, as one defcriptive of
their peculiar office. It is unneceflary to quote
inftances of a phrafeology, which he who runs
may read : " Nihil in fcriptis Rabbinicis fre-
*' quentius eft hac locutione, quod angeli di-
*' cuntur rs'^'il^Ty 0^^bD angeli mini/leriales, adeo,
" ut non opus fit loca qusedam adfcribere *l.'*

I have omitted, as fuperjfluous, to notice an
argument on this topic deducible from the

^5 Schoettgen Horae Heb. in loc

165

contraft drawn between the Son and the cty/g-
Ao/; but I cannot help alluding to one paflage,
from the fingularity of the tranflation : ^^ To
'' which of thofe melTengers/' it is faid, '' fpake
'' God at any time, Thou art my Son, this day
*' I have adopted thee ?" This is an extrad:
from the fecond Pfalm, which neverthelefs
they elfewhere tranllate, " Thou art my Son,
" this day I have begotten thee." Ads xiii. 33.
Why this change in the tranflation ? And what
authority have they for rendering ib» in the
Hebrew, and ymcto) in the Greek, to adopt f
I may perhaps be told, that there is a meta-
phorical as well as natural filiation, and that
the Pfalm referred to evinces a metaphorical
filiation to have been intended, becaufe in its
primary fenfe it muft be confidered as appli-
cable to David, and to Chrijl only in its le-
condary fenfe. But this expedient will by no
means anfwer the end propofed, becaufe by
the adoption of it we reprefent the writer of
the Epiftle as advancing an argument which
carries with it its own refutation. For when,
from a confident prefumption that the queftion
is unanfwerable, he alks, '^ To which of thofe
" meflengers, i. e, prophets, fpake God at any
" time, Thou art my Son, this day have I be-

M 3

1(56

'' gotten thee ?" may we not inftantly reply.
The prophet David 9

It would be foreign to my purpofe, if not
unimportant to the particular point at iffue,
were I to enter into the long agitated contro-
verfy refpeding the author of this Epiftle. It
feems admitted on all fides, that it was com-
pofed at the apoftolical period, and may there-
fore, I prefume, be taken as evidence, upon
general topics at leaft, of the fentiments then
entertained by orthodox Chriftians. The Tranf-
lators themfelves, in c. ii. 8. give what they
deem '' a prefumptive proof, that it was either
'' written by St. Paul, or by fome perfon, per-
*' haps jBarnabas, or Luke, who was an aflbciate
'* with him, and familiarly acquainted with the
'^ Apoftle's llyle of thinking and reafoning;" al-
though they fubfequently reprefent this as very
uncertain. Lardner, after a full difcullion of
the fubjecl, concludes in favour of the proba-
bility, that St. Paul was the author of it ; and
Sykes ftrenuoully contends for the fame pofi-
tion. I omit the mention of other critics,
from a perfuafion, that the opinion of all,
when added to the weight of that advanced bj
Lardner and by Sykes, can only prove, in the
judgment of Unitarians, light as atoms of duft

167

on the preponderating balance. Although,
therefore, we cannot pofitively, we may at
ieaft, I truft, prefumptively, afcribe it to St.
Paul.

Having alluded to the uncertainty which
has been fuppofed to exift refpeding the au-
thor of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, I fliall
flightly notice fome little inconfiftency to be
found in the account given of the other books
of the New Tellament, which have not been
at all times, and in all countries, acknow-
ledged as works indifputably of apoftolical
compolition. Thefe are, the Epiftle of St.
James, the fecond of St. Peter, the fecond and
third of St. John, the Epiftle of Jude, and the
Revelation ; which are reprefented as books,
^' whofe genuinenefs was difputed by the early
*' Chriftian writers." And yet we are after-
wards informed, that the Epiftle of St. James
*' is not unworthy of the Apoftle, to whom it
'* is generally afcribed ;*' that the fecond and
third Epiftles of St. John fo much refemble
the firft in fubjed and language, as not to leave
" a doubt of their having the fame author ;"
and that the Revelation cannot be read by any
intelligent or candid perfon, " without his be-
" ing convinced, that, confidering the age in

M 4

168

*' which it appeared, none but a perfon di-
*' vinely infpired could have written it," No-
thing therefore remains abfolutely to be dif-
carded, except the fecond of St. Peter, and the
unfortunate Epiitle of St. Jude, neither of
which are admiffible under the friendly fliel-
ter of the Unitarian wing. By thefe reflexions,
however, I am far from meaning to cenfure
the Tranflators for their laudable attempt at*'

^ Why is fo marked an exception made of St. Peter's
fecond Epiftle, and the Epiftle of St. Jude ? Lardner, af-
ter a detailed examination of the arguments alleged
againil their authenticity, concludes ftrongly in favour of
it. Of St. Peter's two Epiftles he fays, " If we confult
" them, and endeavour to form a judgment by internal
" evidence, I fuppofe it will appear very probable, that
" both are of the fame author. And it may feem fome-
" what ftrange, that any of the ancients hefitated about
" it, who had the two Epiftles before them. * * * I con-
^^ elude therefore, that the two Epiftles generally afcribed
" to the Apoftle Peter are indeed his. * * * * Certainly
" thefe Epiftles, and the difcourfes of Peter recorded in
" the AAs, together with the effects of them, are monu-
" ments of a divine injpii-ation." Hiftory of the Apoftles
and Evangeiifts, chap. 19. Of the Epiftle of St. Jude he
fays, " I have been thus prolix in rehearfing the pafTages
'• of Clement ; for they appear to me to be a fufficient
" proof of the antiquity and genuinnejfe of this Epiftle ;
" or that it was writ by Jude, one of ChriJVs twelve Apo-
f^ ftles." Ibid. chap. 20. Such was the opinion of Lardner,

169

even partially refcuing from fufpicion the con-
troverted books ; the fole objed: which I have
in view being limply to note, wath what fa-
cility and prompt decifion they here, as elfe-
where, repudiate or verify, fubvert or reefta-
bhfh, the generally received canon of Scrip-
ture at pleafure.

Before I conclude my remarks upon this
produ6lion, I fliall flightly advert to a circum-
ftance incidentally alluded to in another place,
viz. that it is not what it profelTes to be, a
tranflation fcrupuloufly adhering to the text
of Griefbach, '^ the moft corred which has
^' hitherto been publiihed^;" but one, in fome
inftances, made from a text which exifts no
where but in the imagination of the Tranfla-
tors; who, although they generally indeed fol-

The Tranflators however, although in points of this na-
ture they feem principally to build their faith upon his
critical dedu<9:ions, choofe to think differently. With
refpe6l indeed to the Jirji and third chapters of St. Peter's
difputed Epiftle^ they exprefs themfelves rather doubt-
fully; but the fecond chapter they condemn without re-
ferve, printing it in italics. And yet Lardner, as we have
feen, maintained the divine authority of the whole, and
Michaelis ftates what he terms " pofitive grounds for be-
*^ lieving it genuine." Introd. vol. iv. p. 350, &c.
'^ Introd. p. 8.

170

low Griefbach, yet occafionallj innovate even
on his innovations. In the courfe of my re-
flexions I have pointed out many paflages of
confiderable length undifputed by him, the
authenticity of which they reprefent as ex-
tremely dubious. Nor is this all. For, com-
pletely in the teeth of an intimation formally
given, that '' the words, which in the judg-
*' ment of Griefbach ihould probably, though
^^ not certainly, be expunged, are included in
" brackets \" they fometimes take the liberty
themfelves of expunging words of this defcrip-
tion upon the fuperior decifion of their own
judgment". Timid, cautious, circumfpedive,
Griefbach weighed over and over again, with
anxious folicitude, the credit of a textual varia-
tion, experience having taught him wifdom ;
for he candidly confefles, that in his firft edi-
tion he had admitted feveral readings into the
text, which in his fecond, uncorroborated by
f more recent collations, he felt himfelf under the
necefTity of removing to the margin : " Non-
*' nuUas lediones, quae olim in margine inte-
'' riore fuifTent repofitae, jam, plurium teftium

t Explanation of marks, Introd. p. ^^,
u See Mark ii. 26. v. 15. Luke ix. $6.

171

'' audoritate confirmatas, in textum recepi ;
** fed contra etiam alias, quibus in textu olim
" locum fuum aflignaflem, nunc, teftibus nuper
*' produdis nil novi prccfidii afFerentibus, in
" marginem amandavi^." But they, lefs exaA
and more intrepid, in palTages where he could
only difcover the appearance of a probable, de-
termine the exiflence of a certain, omiffion j
and by an eafy dafli of the pen obliterate them
altogether.

On one occafion indeed they hazard a bolder
Hep ; and, where Griefbach adopts, without ob-
fervation, the common reading, they, upon the
fole authority of the Cambridge manufcript y,

^ Prolegomena, p. 86.

y It would be too widely digreffing from my fubje^:
to difcufs here the authority of the Cambridge manu-
fcript, which has already been fufficiently prolific in dif-
cuffions of this nature ; nor indeed is it neceffary, as no
biblical critic of eminence (for I do not fo eftimate the
late Archbifhop Newcome) would dream of altering the
facred text, upon the fingle credit of this manufcript. I
will, however, extract a pafTage or two from Mill and
Michaelis, declarative of their refpe6live judgments upon
it : " Hujus certe," obferves Mill, " de quo agimus,
" Grseca quod attinet, vix dici poteft, quam fupra omnem
" modum in iis digerendis licenter fe geflerit, ac plane laf-
" civierit interpolator, quifquis ille. In animo ipfi fuifle
'*' prima fronte credideris, non quidem textum ilium exhi-

172

venture upon a little interpolation, which di-
reAly converts an affirmative into a negative

" here, quern ediderant ipfi Evangeliftse, fed obfervato
" duntaxat S. Textus ordine et hiiloria, fingula Evangelia
" abfolutiora et pleniora reddere. Hue enim faciunt in-
" tromilTae in cujufque Evangelii textum particulae variae,
" integrseque period! reliquorum : hue tranfpofita in uno-
" quoque plurima, ob hiftoriae claritatem : hue tradudse
" ex Evangeliis et Apocryphis TrfpixoTrat : hue interpola-
^' tiones alise innumerae. Verum et in aliam plane fen-
'^ tentiam pertrahunt nonnulla. Vocabula pro genuinis
'' alia, neutiquam o-YjfjiOiVTiKCDTspoL, adeoque ad hiftoriae cla-
'' ritatem ac ubertatem nihil conferentia : mutationes nu-
^^ merorum, cafuuiu, generum, temporum, paffim factae
*^ abfque onini caufa : tranfpofitiones infinitae, quarum
^^ nulla idonea ratio vel fingi poterit : contra6la denique
" plurima, et excifae hie inde partes, et quidem totae fen-
" tentiae, quae mirifice ad hiiloriae Evangelicae integritatem
'* faciunt. Neutiquam enim hujufmodi praetermiferit, cui
" conftitutum fuerit ex unoquoque Evangeliorum confi-
" cere integram hiftoriam Evangelicam, et quad Diatefla-
" ron. Imo vero certum illud unum, Digeflorem hujus
" textus, in hifce libris Evangeliorum et a6luum grafTa-
'' turn fuifle pro arbitrio ; addidiffe, fuftulifle, mutafle,
'^ plane uti ferebat animus ; multoque, ut verbo dicam,
^^ labdre illud egifle, ut textus ipforum Evangeliftarum,
" magna fui parte, in alium quendam traqsformatus ince-
" deret.** Prolegomena, p. 133. Wetftein and others
confidered it as nothing more than a Greek tranflation
from fome old Latin manufcript; and Storr pointed out
its lingular coincidence with the Syriac Verfion, by which

173

fentence. It is recorded of St. John, who vi-
fited, with St. Peter, the fepulchre of our Lord,

he conceived it to have been corrected. It is in oppofi-
tion to thefe opinions that Michaelis makes the follow-
ing reflexions. " After a due confideration of all thefe
" circumftances, we fliall hardly conclude, that a Greek-
" Latin MS. written in the weft of Europe, where Latin
" only was fpoken, has been altered from the Syriac : and
" the natural inference to be deduced is, that its readings
'^ art for the moji part genuine, and of courfe preferable
" to thofe of modern manufcripts. On the other hand,
** I will not deny, that feveral appear to he faulty, being
" either fcho I'm, or a fubftitution of an eafy for a difficult
*' reading, or the refult of an alteration made to remove
^^ fome unfavourable doShine. * * * * The refult of the
" preceding remarks is, that the MS. in queftion cannot
" poflibly have been altered from the Latin, according to
" the charge which has been ufually laid againft it. The
" tranfcriber appears to have a6led like a critic, to have
*^ correfted the text from the beft help which he could
" procure, to have derived affiftance from many ancient
" MSS, fome of which perhaps had admitted fcholia into
" the text, and at times to have ventured a critical con^
^^ jedlure" Vol. ii. p. 233. 235. Contemplating therefore
this manufcript in the moft favourable point of view, we
muft admit, that liberties were taken in the conftru6lion
of its text, which render its fincerity dubious. Indeed
Dr. Kipling, in his printed edition of it, makes the fol-
lowing candid confeflion : " Notiffimum eft Bez£e Codicis
" textum non modo fcholiis hie illic foedari, verum etiam
^^fpuriis quihifdam amplificari pericopis.*' Praef. p. 5.

174

when Mary Magdalene had communicated to
them her fufpicions refpeding the removal of
the body, that, after he had infpeded the fe-
pulchre, '' he faw and beheved." Now this
paflage, in dired: contradidion to every other
manufcript, they render, " he faw and believed
" not,'' adding the following note from New-
come; '' So the Cambridge MS. in the Greek,
** but not in the Latin, tranflation of it. The
" following verfe affigns a reafon for the un-
" belief of St. John and St. Peter." The pre-
cife value of this fort of half authority, con-
tradifted by its other half, for the manufcript
in queftion contains a Latin, as well as a Greek
text, it is for them to calculate and explain ;
but as the coniiftency of the narrative is urged
by way of proving the neceffity of their inter-
polation, I cannot help remarking, that the
common fenfe of the context, by which alone,
I apprehend, the confiftency of the narrative
can be preferved, requires no fuch addition.
The point applicable to the credence of the
Apoftle was, not the refurredion of our Sa-
viour, for nothing upon that head had yet been
furmifed, but evidently the report of Mary
Magdalene, that the body had been ftolen
away. When therefore St. John was in-

175

formed of the circumftance, and, examining
the fepulchre, perceived the hnen clothes,
which had wrapped the body, lying on the
ground, and the napkin, which had been bound
about the head, folded together in a place by
itfelf, can we poffibly conjecture that he be-
lieved not P

Upon the whole then, it is, I prefume, in-
controvertible, that they have not uniformly
adhered to the text of Grielbach. I do not in-
deed difpute their right to deviate from the
judgment of that, or any other critic ; but I
complain of their holding out falfe colours to
the public. If they flattered themfelves that
they polTefled talents capable of improving
*' the moll correft text of the original which
" has hitherto been publiflied/' they were
doubtlefs at liberty to have made the experi-
ment ; but they fhould have undertaken the
talk openly and undifguifedly. Were they ap-
prehenlive, that in fuch a cafe their compe-
tency might have been queftioned, and their
prefumption cenfured ?

Nor can I take a final leave of the fubje6l,
without again alluding to another deception
praftifed upon the general reader. From the
ftyle of the title-page, the prolegomenal parade

176

of the Introdudion, and the perpetual attempt
at manufcript erudition in the notes, he is
naturally induced to confider the Verfion as
one conducted upon principles rigidly critical,
while, in truth, it is nothing more than a mere
patchwork tranflation, folely manufadured to
promote the caufe of Unitarianifm. When a
paffage occurs, which in its obvious fenfe
threatens fatality to the Unitarian Creed, its
fting is inftantly and ingenioufly extracfted ;
what expolition the language of Scripture can,
not what it ought to bear, becomes the objedl
of inveftigation ; and the context is twilled
into fubferviency to the glofs, and not the
glofs made confiftent with the context. The
Tranflators indeed unrefervedly confefs, that
they have ftudied '' to preclude many fources
*^ of error, by divefting the facred volume of the
*' technical phrafes of a fyftematic theology ;"
but they forget to add, that it was only in or-
der to fuperfede one fyftem by another. If a
claufe admits the flighteft pliability of mean-
ing, every nerve is ftrained to give it a peculiar
direclion. Inftead of enquiring, with Chriftian
fimplicity, what really are, they prefume with
philofophical arrogance upon what muji fee,
the dodrines of Scripture; and fubftitute the

177

deductions of reafon for the dictates of revela-
tion. Averfe from eftabliflied opinion, fond
of novelty, and vain of fingularity, they pride
themfelves upon a fort of mental infulation,
and become captivated at every magic touch
w^ith the effluent brilliance of their own in-
telleft. The profound refearches of the moll
diftinguiflied commentators and philologifts
they either llight or defpife, unlefs convertible
by a little dexterity of application to the ag-
grandizement of fome favourite theory ; and
fatiate us with the fiimfy refinements and
loofe lucubrations of Lindfey, or of Prieffley.
Immoderately attached to particular dodrines,
and deeply prejudiced againft all others,
they modify every expreffion in the text, and
every expofition in the notes, to a fenfe fome-
times diredly favourable, but never even in-
direcftly unfavourable, to Unitarianifm ; fo that
in reality, always indifferent, though appa^
rently fometimes anxious, refpeding the true
philological import of fcriptural language, and
ever refllefs with the gad-fly of theological
conceit, they prove themfelves to be wholly
incapacitated, from a defed, if not of talent,
certainly of temper, for the patient tafk of cri^
tical rumination.

#

*^^vi%%

mm.

kf-6

/-^\

Hi^BCiri

...

Date Due

F»-

I^B^/'.' ■ ■

W--MM

nH^kJ^CNlwH

I

1

5^*:

W^M ^

«. J- i;^4rl^-^

^

^ ■\

^i.

i^¥^'^

:i

Vj, %

k

Ji^9

J^\^*

'■rC?«js!

^^^Vi

5^-^.i^j.

BS455.L37

Critical reflections upon some important

_PrmcetonJheological Semmary-Speer Library

I 1 1012 00081 2679

^t:

■^

'. r-i

"'i^^.